Mahaveer Yadav v. Order

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Review Petition No.96/2018 In D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.238/2018 Mahaveer Yadav S/o Shri Gangadeen, VPO- Budhi Bawal, Tehsil-Kotkasim, Alwar. ----Appellant-Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, (5), Income Tax Office, Alwar.----RespondentFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Order 20/11/2018 This petition has been filed by appellant-petitioner seekingreview of the judgment dated 13.08.2018, whereby this courtdismissed his appeal upholding the order dated 27.02.2018 of thelearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The ITAT by the aforesaidorder dismissed the earlier appeal and upheld the order dated07.02.2017 passed by the CIT (A), Alwar for the assessment year2011-12. We may at the out set state that the present review petitionis nothing but an attempt to re-argue the entire matter all overagain on merits. The learned counsel has sought to justify filing ofthe review petition taking a clue from the judgment of theSupreme Court in Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Delhi – (2011) 1 SCC 673, relied by this court tohold that the Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, the interferencetherewith was not warranted. It is argued that the aforesaid caseof the Supreme Court relates to the case of genuineness of cashcredits which involves altogether a different question of law andthe present case is entirely different and relates to inheritance ofancestral agricultural property and selling the same after subdividing it into small portions, is entirely different on facts. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the ratio of theaforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is that the Tribunalbeing a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstratedperversity in its finding, interference therewith by this court wasnot warranted. Facts of each case are bound to differ. What is therelevance is whether the ratio of that relied judgment can beapplied to the case in which it is being relied. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has failed topoint out any error apparent on the face of the judgment of thiscourt, which may justify review thereof. The review petition is therefore dismissed. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J //Jaiman//40