IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUI REVIEW PETITION 1D /2011 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur Versus RESPONbENT: ^•-' M/s Indian Poultry, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and ^0^ bistrict-Rajnandgaon, "^S"^;^ Chhattisgorh ^(>€ ^" ^ ry~ APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER bATEb 27/07/2009 PASSEb IN ITA N0.76/2003 (^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 70 of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Commissioner oflncome Tax, Raipur. VERSUS M/s. Indian Poultry, Rajnandgaon. ^ APPLICATION FOR REYIEW QF THE ORDER DATED^27.07.2009 PASSED IN 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. 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 Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tdx v. M/s. Balmaccan Properties Pvt. Ltd, has given liberty to the Revenue to file application and satisfy the High Court that there is sufficient 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 that the I.TA. No. 76/2003 was dismissed on the ground ofdelay. Again, this review petition has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 575 days. The petitioner has further not pointed out any manifest en'or on record and further has not brought any new fact which could not be produced by the petitioner earlier inspite ofdue diligent efforts. 3. It is a trite law that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908. (See S.R.Chavan v. Cement Corporation oflndia and others and Kanhaiya Lal Mehar v. HighCourt ofChhattisgarh2). 4. Principle of law is well settled by several judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case oiSmt. Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudhary , Lily Thomas, etc. v. Union of India and others4, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others , Government ofT.N. and others v. 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. This Court has referred to several documents on record and also considered the documentary evidence brought on record. This Court on a consideration of the evidence on record concluded that the respondent had been denied power supply by the Board in appropriate time which prevented the respondent from starting the commercial production by 31-12-1996. This is a fmding of fact recorded by this Court on the basis of appreciation of evidence produced before the Court. In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a fmding 1 (2008)1 CGLJ519 2 (2007) 2 CGLJ 326 3AIR1995SC455 4AIR 2000 SC 1650 5AIR2000SC85 6 (2005) 2 SCC 332 7 (2005) 6 SCC 651 r K Amit of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise." 6. Applying the well settled principles ofreview to the facts ofthe case, the applicant is seeking opportunity to argue the entire case afresh under the garb ofreview petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. This review petition is in the nature ofappeal which cannot be considered and decided by this Court. 7. Thus, the review petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge f Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge