Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bahin Samabay Krishi Unnayan ... vs The Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2022
Item No.2 & 3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 04.05.2022 and 12.05.2022
DELIVERED ON:12.05.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
RVW 62 of 2022
With
MAT 329 of 2022
Bahin Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. & Anr.
VERSUS
The Union of India & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray .....for the applicants.
Mr. Om Narayan Rai .. for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
1. This review application has been filed to review the
judgment and order in MAT 329 of 2022 dated 23rd March, 2022.
2. We have heard Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray, learned advocate for
the applicants and Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned advocate
appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned Advocate appearing for the review applicants
would submit that there are certain errors, which are apparent
on the face of the judgment and order which needs to be
reviewed. Firstly, it is pointed out that in the first
paragraph of the judgment, the date of the order of assessment
has been wrongly recorded as 22.09.2021 instead of 27.09.2021
and the officer, who passed the order has not been mentioned and
assessment year has also not been mentioned. Further, it is
pointed out that in the writ petition, the review applicants had
also challenged the order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)
(c ) of the Act dated 30.01.2022 passed by the third respondent.
Therefore, it is submitted that these mistakes need to be
rectified in the judgment.
4. Further, it is pointed out that in page 5 of the order,
there is reference to Section 292B of the Act whereas the
correct provision of the Act would be Section 292BB of the Act.
Nextly, it is submitted that during the course of argument, the
learned senior standing counsel has produced a screen shot to
show that on what date the transfer of the case took place.
The learned Advocate appearing for the review applicants would
submit that the said screen shot was not produced before the
learned Writ Court and was produced before this Court for the
first time during the course of argument for which he could not
advance argument on the said screen shot.
5. Further, it is submitted that the review applicants have
several ground to urge on the effect of the screen shot, which
opportunity the review applicants was denied because such
document was produced for the first time during argument.
Therefore, it is a submission that the judgment has to be
reviewed. Nextly, it is contended that the learned senior
standing counsel had referred to an order passed by the CBDT
dated 22.09.2021 with regard to the time limit for completion of
the proceedings under the Act, more particularly in cases to be
done under Section 147 of the Act. It is submitted that the
order dated 22.09.2021 will have no application to the case of
the review applicants and in this regard, the learned Advocate
submitted that there are other orders passed by the CBDT much
earlier, i.e. on 06.09.2021 and another on 29.06.2021.
6. The learned Advocate would further submit that without
reference to the other orders passed by the CBDT, the revenue
could not have relied upon the order dated 22.09.2021.
Therefore, it is submitted that this is also one more ground to
review the judgment.
7. The learned senior standing counsel submitted that the
Court has not gone into the merits of the matter but relegated
the review applicants to prefer a statutory appeal and the
grounds urged are not grounds of review.
8. After we have elaborately heard the learned Advocates
appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the attempt
of the review applicants is to reargue the appeal, which is
impermissible. The settled legal position is that a review is
not an appeal in disguise. Furthermore, we had made it clear
that the appellate authority shall consider the appeal to be
filed by the review applicants on merits and in accordance with
law without being influenced by any of the observations and
findings recorded by us in the judgment dated 23.03.2022.
Therefore, the grounds, which have been urged by the learned
Advocate for the review applicants can very well be urged before
the appellate authority in the appeal, which has been directed
to be filed and if the review applicants raise those grounds, it
is needless to say that the appellate authority shall consider
the same on merits and in accordance with law. So far as the
other minor mistakes, which have been pointed out by the learned
Advocate appearing for the review applicants, the same can be
corrected and if done so, it would not amount to reviewing the
judgment but it would be correcting the typographical errors or
details, which have been inadvertently not referred to.
9. For the above reasons, the review application is dismissed
with the following direction:-
In the first paragraph of the judgment dated
23.03.2022, the following sentence may be substituted
"the order of assessment dated 27.09.2021 for the
assessment year 2013-2014 passed by the second
respondent under Section 147 read with Section 1444 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") and the
penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c ) of the
Act by the third respondent dated 30.01.2022" instead
of "the order of assessment dated 22.09.2021 passed
under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act')".
10. This order shall form part of the judgment and order dated
23.03.2022.
11. After we have dictated the above order, the learned
Advocate appearing for the review applicants submitted that the
time granted by this Court in the judgment and order dated
23.03.2022 to prefer the appeal may be extended. We accordingly
extend the time for preferring the appeal in terms of the
liberty granted in our judgment and order dated 23.03.2022 by a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the server copy of
this order.
12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance
of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J)
I agree,
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)
