A3y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR Divisjon Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra IWishra. & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ Review Petition No. 30 of 2011 Petitioner Resoondent Income Tax Rajnandgaon (CG) -Versus- Officer, Shri Mukul Deshlehara, Proprietor of M/s Deshlehara Udyog, VilJage Dewada, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (CG) OR DER (Passed onXOApril, 2011 in chamber) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J By this review petition, the petitioner has prayed for reviewing the order dated 16.6.2009 passed in I.T.A.No. 13/05 and other connected appeals, on the ground that after passing of the order under review, an amendment has been made in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act, 1961") vide Finance Act No.14/10 w.e.f. 1st October, 1998 and a provision has been incorporated that the High Court may admit an appeal after expiry ofthe period of 120 days referred to in Clause (A) of sub- clause (2) of Sectjon 260, if it is satisfied thatthere was syfficient cause for not filing the same within the period. 2. The petitioner has also filed an application (IA No.01) for condonation of delay as this review petition has been preferred with a delay of 616 days. 3. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application, which is also supported by the affidavit, we propose to examine fhe issue on merits by condoning the delay in filing this review petitjon. Accordingly, IA No.01 is allowed and delay is condoned. 4. The ground for interference with theorder while exercising review jurisdiction is weil settled. which may be summarized as under: 'ft is settfed law that the High Courf exercises power ofreviewas a Court of plenary jurfsdfction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committecf by it. There sre no definitive fimits to the exercise of the powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on the ds'scovery of vnew and impoftsnt matter or evidence which, aftef the exercise of ofue difigence, was not wfthin the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be procfuced by him at the time when the order was macfe. ft may be exera'sed where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. However, the power is to be exeraised wsthin the fimitatsons as provided under Section 114 reacf with Order 47 of the Code of Cfvif Procedure, 1908." 5. Thus, in view of the above settled principles of law and after going through the order under review, we find that no any permissible ground has been raised in the instant review petition, except the ground of amendment in the provislon of Section 260A of the Act, 1961 vjde Finance Act, 2010. Sndisputably, when the matter was decided by this Court, the amended provision was not jn the statute and the matter was decided on merits by considering the legal provlsions existing then. Therefore, in our consldered opinion, the instant review petition cannot be entertained only on the ground that the statute has subsequently suffered amendment having retrospective effect from 1st October, 1998. We find no illegality or infirmity in the order under review; the instant petition is without any substance. the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. —— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge