Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J ' v. M/S Indian Poultry,Rajnandgaon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUIREVIEW PETITION1D/2011PETITIONER:CommissionerofIncomeTax, RaipurVersusRESPONbENT:M/sIndianPoultry,^•-'Rajnandgaon,Tahsiland^"^^(>€^0^bistrict-Rajnandgaon,"^S"^;^Chhattisgorhry~APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER bATEb 27/07/2009 PASSEb IN ITA N0.76/2003 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURREVIEW PETITION No. 70 of2011 PETITIONERCommissioner oflncome Tax, Raipur. VERSUSM/s. Indian Poultry, Rajnandgaon.^ RESPONDENT APPLICATION FOR REYIEW QF THE ORDER DATED^27.07.2009 PASSEDIN I.T.A. No. 76/2003 Coram :Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Rangnath Chandrakar, JJ. Present:None for the petitioner.None for the respondent.None for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on 08th day ofSeptember, 2011) Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J ' 1. The petitioner seeks review ofthe order dated 27.07.2009 (Annexure A/1)passed in I.T.A. No. 76/2003 [Commissioner oflncome Tax, Raipur (C.G.)v.M/s.Indian Poultry Rajnandgaon,Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon(C.G.)] mainly on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a SpecialLeave Petition filed by the Revenue in the matter of Commissioner ofIncome Tdx v. M/s. Balmaccan Properties Pvt. Ltd, has given liberty to theRevenue to file application and satisfy the High Court that there issufficient cause for condonation ofdelay. Treating the same as precedent,the Revenue has filed this application for review.passed in I.T.A. No. 76/2003 [Commissioner oflncome Tax, Raipur (C.G.)v.M/s.Indian Poultry Rajnandgaon,Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon(C.G.)] mainly on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a SpecialLeave Petition filed by the Revenue in the matter of Commissioner ofIncome Tdx v. M/s. Balmaccan Properties Pvt. Ltd, has given liberty to theRevenue to file application and satisfy the High Court that there issufficient cause for condonation ofdelay. Treating the same as precedent,the Revenue has filed this application for review. 2. On perusal ofthe order dated 27.07.209 (Annexure A/l), it is evident thatthe I.TA. No. 76/2003 was dismissed on the ground ofdelay. Again, thisreview petition has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of575 days. The petitioner has further not pointed out any manifest en'or onrecord and further has not brought any new fact which could not beproduced[by][ the]petitioner[earlier][ inspite][ ofdue][ diligent][ efforts.]the I.TA. No. 76/2003 was dismissed on the ground ofdelay. Again, thisreview petition has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of575 days. The petitioner has further not pointed out any manifest en'or onrecord and further has not brought any new fact which could not beproduced[by][ the]petitioner[earlier][ inspite][ ofdue][ diligent][ efforts.] (^ 3.It is a trite law that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to thescope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908.(See S.R.Chavan v. Cement Corporation oflndia and others and KanhaiyaLal Mehar v. HighCourt ofChhattisgarh2). 4. Principle of law is well settled by several judicial pronouncements of theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case oiSmt. Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. NirmalaKumar Choudhary , Lily Thomas, etc. v. Union of India and others4, AjitKumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others , Government ofT.N. and othersv. M.Ananchu Asari and others . 5. In the matter of Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropo^ver Ltd. and others7, the Supreme Court observed as under: (^ 3.It is a trite law that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to thescope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908.(See S.R.Chavan v. Cement Corporation oflndia and others and KanhaiyaLal Mehar v. HighCourt ofChhattisgarh2). 4. Principle of law is well settled by several judicial pronouncements of theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case oiSmt. Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. NirmalaKumar Choudhary , Lily Thomas, etc. v. Union of India and others4, AjitKumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others , Government ofT.N. and othersv. M.Ananchu Asari and others . 5. In the matter of Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropo^ver Ltd. and others7, the Supreme Court observed as under: "10.ThisCourthasreferredtoseveraldocuments on record and also considered thedocumentaryevidence broughtonrecord.This Court on a consideration of the evidenceon record concluded that the respondent hadbeen denied power supply by the Board inappropriatetimewhichpreventedtherespondentfromstartingthecommercialproduction by 31-12-1996. This is a fmding offact recorded by this Court on the basis ofappreciation of evidence produced before theCourt. In a review petition it is not open tothis Court to reappreciate the evidence andreach a different conclusion, even if that ispossible. Learned counsel for the Board atbestsoughttoimpressusthatthecorrespondenceexchangedbetweentheparties did not support the conclusion reachedby this Court. We are afraid such a submissioncannot be permitted to be advanced in areview petition. The appreciation of evidenceon record is fully within the domain of theappellate court. If on appreciation of theevidence produced, the court records a fmding 1 (2008)1 CGLJ519 (2008)1 CGLJ519 23AIR1995SC455 (2007) 2 CGLJ 3263AIR1995SC455 (2007) 2 CGLJ 326 4AIR 2000 SC 16505AIR2000SC85 2000 SC 16505AIR2000SC85 67 (2005) 2 SCC 3327 (2005) 2 SCC 332 (2005) 6 SCC 651 K offactandreachesaconclusion,thatconclusion cannot be assailed in a reviewpetition unless it is shown that there is an errorapparent on the face of the record. To permitthe review petitioner to argue on a question ofappreciation of evidence would amount toconverting a review petition into an appeal indisguise." 6. Applying the well settled principles ofreview to the facts ofthe case, the applicant is seeking opportunity to argue the entire case afresh under thegarb ofreview petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. Thisreview petition is in the nature ofappeal which cannot be considered anddecided by this Court. 7. Thus, the review petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be and isaccordingly dismissed.accordingly dismissed. Sd/-Satish K. AgnihotriJudge Sd/-R.N. ChandrakarJudge