Order v. M/S Rajesh Exports Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR & THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA REVIEW PETITION NO.378 OF 2017INITA NO.1 OF 2009 BETWEEN: 1.THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU – 560001. 2.THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 12(4) PRESENT ADDRESS CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (2) C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1.M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LTD. NO 4, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, K K ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHU HULIKAL, ADVOCATE) This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC praying to review / recall the order of this Court dated 14.10.2014 passed in ITA No.1/2009. This review petition coming on for admission this day, ARAVIND KUMAR J., made the following: ORDER We have heard the arguments of Sri. Aravind K.V. learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners and Sri Raghu Hulikal learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Petitioners have filed this review petition seeking review of the order dated 14.10.2014 passed in ITA No.1/2009. The sum and substance of the contentions/grounds urged in the review petition is, the appeal filed by the revenue came to be dismissed by following the Judgment in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE Vs. M/S. MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. reported in 2014-TIOL-87-HC-KAR-IT; the correctness of the Judgment rendered in the said case was doubted and it had been referred to the Larger Bench and this aspect had not been taken note of while Judgment in ITA 1/2009 was rendered and therefore, order dated 14.10.2014 passed in ITA 1/2019 requires to be reviewed. Thus, petitioners have prayed for allowing the review petition. 3. A perusal of said order would indicate that it has been passed after consideration of entire material on record and it is not the case of either the revenue or the assessee that issue regarding interest income earned by the assessee from fixed deposit as held even by the Full Bench is to be treated as ‘business income’. It is also not the case of revenue that pendency of appeal before larger Bench had been brought to the notice of the Bench which disposed off ITA 1/2009. Even otherwise, the Judgment of the Full Bench came to be rendered on 30.10.2017 and as such, the said Judgment was not available on the day when ITA 1/2009 came to be disposed off i.e., on 14.10.2014. Mere pendency of issue before larger Bench would not be a ground for review. 4. It is well settled that first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order of which review is sought for, should suffer from error apparent on the face of the record. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the order cannot be disturbed. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by the process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the court exercising the power of review. 5. In S. BAGIRATHI AMMAL Vs. PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION reported in 2009(10) SCC 464, the Apex Court has held that an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for permissibility of review must be such that it is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must manifest on the face of the record. 6. In the present case, we find no such error having been pointed out requiring review of the order. We do not find any other good ground to review the order passed in ITA No.1/2009 dated 14.10.2014. Hence, review petition stands dismissed. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE sac*