^'j^j'\J-^-^'\^^--J''~^f~'^i'"~»r'J--^'-J''^-J-:-r~J~-^'-J'-J'-f^ Division Bendl IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (€.6.) REVIEWPETCTTON No. 5-9 /2011 REVIEW PETCTION UNDER RUL6 90 OF THE HIGH CqyRTlOF CHHATTISGARH RULES 2007, READ WITH ORbER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE COD6 OF CIVIL PROC6DURE. APPLICANT >w- i^^'^^s^ ^^^^^^'^^ presen^^^^...^- •^^...—•"^"<-r^-^ RESPONDENT ^M/S Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. MI611, Padnabhpur Durg (C.^.) V6RSUS -Oeputy Commissioner of Income TQX Circte 1 Bhilai (C.G.) ^',.- ^:.:. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 59 of2011 M/s. Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 Bhilai. REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE 90 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES 2007, READ WJTH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OFCIVIL PROCEDURE. APPLICANT RESPONDENTS Coram : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Rangnath Chandrakar, JJ. Present: None for the applicant. None for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on 08th day ofSeptember, 2011) Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J I.A. No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay. SufTicient cause has been shown. Delay is condoned. 1. The applicant seeks review ofthe order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed in Tax Case No. 105/2010 [Depiity Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) v. M/s. Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. M1G-2, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)}, on the following grounds: "(A) Because the error apparent on the face of the record in its judgments are error on substantial point of law, though the assesse/petitioner filed written submission relied by the relevantjudgments in response to appeal of the department, on account of some mistake same is not reflect and appears in the impugned judgment, hence not been considered before delivering the judgment. (B) Because it is settled law that ifthe plaint interpretation gives absurd result, then external aid can be taken to interpret the provisions of law, explained to section 73 was enacted as result of recommendation of law commission. Wanchoo committee and as per settled judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court oflndia it can be referred for interpretation, more over the C.B.D.T. circular also makes it clear that the provisions was to be used against the group ofcompanies to check the evasion oftax and not is cases of all the companies where thee is no evasion of tax. As the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the matter of K.P.Varghese v. I.T.O. reported in (1981) 131ITR597." 2. The submission in the review petition that the judgment relied by the respondent (in Tax Case No. 105/2010) in his written submission, has not been considered, is not correct. The judgments which were relevant for .adjudication of the issue were considered and as such, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. There is no gainsaying that it is for the Court to consider the relevant judgments and not all the judgments, which according to the Court, is not relevant. However, in the facts of the case, indisputably, learned counsel appearing for the applicant had not relied on any judgment during the course of the argument. According to him, the same were supplied alongwith the written submission. Thus, the averment in the review petition that the judgments relied on by the counsel were not cited in the judgment, thus, there is an en<or apparent on the record, is misconceived and misplaced. This may not be a ground for review of the order passed earlier. 3. It is evident that the applicant has not pointed out any manifest error on record and further has not brought any new fact which could not be produced by the applicant earlier inspite of due diligent efforts. It is a trite law that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (See S.R.Chavan v. Cement Corporation oflndia and others and Kanhaiya Lal Mehar v. High Court ofChhattisgarh2). 4. Principle of law is well settled by several judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSmt. Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudhary, Lily Thomas, etc. v. Union of India and others , Ajit (2008)1 CGLJ519 ' (2007) 2 CGLJ 326 !AIR 1995 SC 455 'AIR 2000 SC 1650 ® Kumar Rath v. State ofOrissa 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 & Hydropower Ltd. and others1, 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 prbduction by 31-12-1996. This is a finding 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 finding 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 of review to the facts of the 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 of appeal 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/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 'AIR2000SC85 6 (2005) 2 SCC 332 7 (2005) 6 SCC 651 Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge