Mahalaxmi Jewellers through its Proprietor Smt. Santosh Soni V. Union of India through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jodhpur and Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (3), Jodhpur

WRW/68/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Mahalaxmi Jewellers, represented by its proprietor Smt. Santosh Soni, who filed a review petition against an order dated 16th May 2019 concerning a writ petition. The review petition questioned the competence of the author of summons issued, which were central to the original writ petition. The respondents, including the Union of India and the Income Tax Officer, opposed the review, arguing that it merely sought to introduce new grounds not previously considered. The court, referencing Supreme Court decisions, clarified that the review process is not intended for re-hearing or re-evaluating the merits of the case but is limited to correcting apparent errors in the original judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802913 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sow Chandra Kante and Ors. Vs. Sheikh Habib, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL BHANDARI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP BHANDAWAT
• Keywords: Competence; Error apparent; Maintainability; Review petition; Summons; Writ petition; Face of record
• Section: 131(1)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 68/2019 M/s. Mahalaxmi Jewellers through its Proprietor Smt. Santosh Soni W/o Shri Rajendra Verma, aged 44 years, resident of Sunaron Ka Bas, Bhoron Ka Chowk, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jodhpur. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (3), Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Order 08/08/2019 Petitioner has preferred this review petition against order dated 16th of May, 2019, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6112/19. Essentially, in the review petition, petitioner-assesses has dilated on the merits of the case questioning competence of the author of summons which were issued and impugned in the writ petition. In substance, the only ground urged in the review petition is to reconsider the matter in the interest of justice. On behalf of department, reply to the review petition is submitted raising certain preliminary objections about maintainability of the review petition. As per respondent- (2 of 4) [WRW-68/2019] department, in the guise of review petition, the whole endeavour of the petitioner is to raise new grounds which were not subject matter of the writ petition. It is also pleaded in the preliminary objections that there is no whisper in the review petition about an error apparent on the face of record in the order under review. On merits also, the department has pleaded that the summon under sub-section (1) of Section 131 of the Income-tax Act 1961 was issued by authorized person and pursuant thereto proceedings are undertaken, and thereby no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment under review. The whole endeavor of the petitioner is to re-hear the matter despite non-availability of any cogent ground for reviewing the order. The review jurisdiction is not meant for re-hearing the matters and its invocation is desirable only when an aggrieved party has made out a case of an error apparent on the face of record in the judgment/order under review. This Court cannot delve deep into the matter again on mere ipse dixit of the petitioner just for fishing out some grounds to rehear the matter. Supreme Court, in case of Sow Chandra Kante and Ors. Vs. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674], while emphasizing on the ground for review, has observed that in the guise of review re- hearing of the matter is not permissible. The Court held: “A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring (3 of 4) [WRW-68/2019] omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge back-log of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” In Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. [(1999) 9 SCC 596], the Supreme Court, while examining scope of review, held: “30. The provision extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order XLVII. The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law (4 of 4) [WRW-68/2019] or fact which stared in the face without any elaborate arguments being needed for establishing it, it may be pointed out that the expression “any other sufficient reason” used in Order XLVII Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule. 31. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order XLVII, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.” It is settled that as long as the point in issue has been dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the order/judgment passed in the guise of possibility of an alternative view. The court, in review jurisdiction interferes only when a glaring omission, or patent mistake, or grave error has crept in the order/judgment but in the instant case I am unable to find any omission/mistake or error in the order under review. In view of thereof, no case for review is made out. Consequently, the review petition fails and same is rejected. (P.K. LOHRA),J 20 "