Passed In Writ Tax v. Union Of India And Others, Whereby Petitioner's Writpetition Has Been Allowed

Court No. - 10 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 93 of 2024Applicant :- Dy. Commisioner Of Income Tax , Dcit (Bpu) , Lko. And AnotherOpposite Party :- Smt. Meera PandeyCounsel for Applicant :- Neerav Chitravanshi,Kushagra Dikshit Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J. 1. Heard. 2. This application seeks review of judgment and order dated 25.04.2024 passed in Writ Tax No. 11 of 2023 : Smt. MeeraPandey Vs. Union of India and others, whereby petitioner's writpetition has been allowed. 3. We have gone through grounds taken in review application,which virtually constituting an attempt to re-argue the matterwhich cannot be done in the garb of review. 4. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury : AIR1995 SC 455 while quoting with approval the above passagefrom Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Shartn :1979 (4) SCC 389, the Apex Court has held that reviewproceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictlyconfined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 5. In Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others : 1997 (8) SCC 715, it was held that an error, which is not selfevident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, canhardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise powers of review in exercise of review jurisdiction. 6. In Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambai : AIR 2003 SC 2095, theApex Court has observed about limited scope of judicialintervention at the time of review of the judgment and has heldas under :- "The limitations on exercise of the power of review arewell settled. The first and foremost requirement ofentertaining a review petition is that the order, review ofwhich is sought, suffers from any error apparent on theface of the order and permitting the order to stand willlead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error,finality attached to the judgement/order cannot bedisturbed." 7. Thus, review is not an appeal in disguise. Rehearing of thematter is impermissible in the garb of review. It is an exceptionto the general rule that once a judgment is signed orpronounced, it should not be altered. In Lily Thomas Vs.Union of India : AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Apex Court has heldthat power of review can be exercised for correction of amistake and not to substitute a new. Such powers can beexercised within limits of the statute dealing with the exerciseof power. The aforesaid view is reiterated in Inderchand JainVs. Motilal (2009) 4 SCC 665. 8. In Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others : 2013 (8)SCC 320, the Apex Court has held as under :- have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, meredisagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be theground for invoking the same. As long as the point isalready dealt with and answered, the parties are notentitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guisethat an alternative view is possible under the reviewjurisdiction. Summary of the Principles: 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds ofreview are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidencewhich, after the exercise of due diligence, was not withinknowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced byhim; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has beeninterpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112and approved by this Court in Moran Mar BasseliosCatholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors.,AIR 1954 SC 526, to mean "a reason sufficient ongrounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".The same principles have been reiterated in Union ofIndia vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors.,2013 (8) SCC 337. 22.2. When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidencewhich, after the exercise of due diligence, was not withinknowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced byhim; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has beeninterpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112and approved by this Court in Moran Mar BasseliosCatholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors.,AIR 1954 SC 526, to mean "a reason sufficient ongrounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".The same principles have been reiterated in Union ofIndia vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors.,2013 (8) SCC 337. 22.2. When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is notenough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with theoriginal hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,manifest on the face of the order, undermines itssoundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguisewhereby an erroneous decision is reheard and correctedbut lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subjectcannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record shouldnot be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully withinthe domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permittedto be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same reliefsought at the time of arguing the main matter had beennegatived." (emphasis supplied) 9. Having regard to the aforesaid proposition of law and gone through the record available before this Court, we are of theview that there is no apparent error on the face of record, henceno ground for review of the order is made out. 10. The present review application is, accordingly, rejected. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Ajit