Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Pratappur. Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Pratappur v. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 101 of 2024 Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Pratappur. Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Pratappur. ---- Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner: Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumrani on behalf of Mr. Amit Choudhari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.06.2024 1.Heard Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha,learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ajay Kumrani holdingbrief of Mr. Amit Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondent.learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ajay Kumrani holdingbrief of Mr. Amit Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondent. 2.The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking review of the orderdated 12.04.2024 passed in TAXC No. 86/2024 and thereby prays forremanding the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur forconsideration of the application in light of provisions of Income Tax Act/Rules.dated 12.04.2024 passed in TAXC No. 86/2024 and thereby prays forremanding the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur forconsideration of the application in light of provisions of Income Tax Act/Rules. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice and order under section 250 of the Act appears to have been dropped on the e-filing portal of the petitioner without any real time alert and were notserved as per above provisions. It is held in para-1 and para-8 of theorder seeking review that counsel for Respondent has been heard,which is contrary to law, for as per settled legal position issuance of priornotice without framing any substantial question of law is notcontemplated in section 260A of the Act far less hearing theRespondent. As per sub-section (4) of section 260A of the Act. Hon'bleDivision Bench has been pleased to also deliberate upon the issue onmerits while the learned Appellate Tribunal declined to decide on meritsand dismissed the appeal only on the grounds of delay. Hon'ble DivisionBench ought to have considered the fact that learned Appellate Tribunalhas dismissed the appeal on the presumption that the delay was due tolackadaisical conduct of the petitioner while it is settled legal position thatthere cannot be any presumption about delay. As such the reviewpetition deserves to be allowed. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent would support the order underreview.review. 5.We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugnedorder under review.order under review. 6.It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited andonly an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the saidjurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exerciseof said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellatejurisdiction which is impermissible in law (pl. See Devaraju Pillai v.Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v.only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the saidjurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exerciseof said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellatejurisdiction which is impermissible in law (pl. See Devaraju Pillai v.Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. 6.It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited andonly an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the saidjurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exerciseof said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellatejurisdiction which is impermissible in law (pl. See Devaraju Pillai v.Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v.only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the saidjurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exerciseof said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellatejurisdiction which is impermissible in law (pl. See Devaraju Pillai v.Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170,Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996)10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reportedin AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi andothers, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v.Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692. 7.The grounds raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannotbe permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is noerror apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment underreview warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 8.Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ruchi