# The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Kanpur v. Sri Umang Agarwal

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 505
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-26
- **Case number:** Income Tax Appeal No. 422 of 2006
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-central-kanpur-v-sri-umang-agarwal-53218
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Tax Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Sections 139, 143, 158-BB(1)(ca), 15-BB,
158-BC & 263 - Civil Procedure Code,
1908 - Order 47 - Rules 1 - Sections 114
& 151- Review Petition - against High Court's
order - whereby court had allowed the income
Tax Appeal setting aside the order passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and remanded
the matter to the Tribunal with certain
observation - seeking review - on the ground
that court failed to address key legal and factual
issues - and most notably, that delayed in filing
of the income tax return under Section 139 was
due to the seizure of account books by tax
authorities, and therefore, declaring the return
"non-est" was unjust - The Income Tax
Department opposed the review as unjustified,
claiming due process was followed and the
return was rightly treated as 'non-est' - Court
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clarified that, the strict scope of review
jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 and
Section 114 of the CPC - a review is only
allowed in the case of a clear error apparent
on the face of the record, and not for
rehearing or correcting a possibly erroneous
but reasoned judgment - held, review is not
an appeal in disguise - and earlier remark
calling the ITR "non-est" was not its final
conclusion but rather an obiter or passing
comment - hence, order in question does
not suffer from an error on the face of
record - so as to persuade this court to
review the order - accordingly, the review
petition is rejected. (Para - 6, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17)

Review Petition Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Kanpur Vs. Sri Umang Agarwal
505
bearing on the entire controversy
involved as the financial implications of the
result of proceedings of regular assessment
vis-a-vis block assessment have to be
examined in the entirety of the fact
situation.

12. Both the substantial questions
framed revolve around the finding of 'nonest' and its effect on the assessee and once
we are satisfied and have already held in
the order deciding review application, as
quoted above, that the said observation was
merely an obiter and not a finding/ ratio/
conclusion drawn by this Court, we deem it
appropriate to remand the matter to the
Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration
on merits of the case.

13. Consequently, we answer both
the questions in the manner that the
Tribunal's finding treating the ITR under
Section 139(1) for the Assessment Year
2002-2003 filed on 01.09.2004 as 'non-est'
is erroneous and the effect of search
conducted on 04.09.2002 before the due
date i.e. 31.10.2002, release of material in
favour of the assessee on 05.07.2004, filing
of return thereafter on 01.09.2004 and its
financial consequences were liable to be
considered on their own merits and not
based upon the observation of 'non-est'
made by this Court in the order dated
16.05.2014.

14.
Consequently,
the
appeal
succeeds and is allowed.

15. The order impugned dated
25.08.2014 is hereby set aside and the
matter is remanded to the Income Tax
Appellate
Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench,
Allahabad for fresh consideration of entire
case of the assessee on its own merits in
accordance with law. The Tribunal shall
revive the proceedings of appeal and
dispose off the same after providing full
opportunity of hearing to the parties based
upon record within a period of four
months from the date a certified copy of
this order is filed before it.

16. Shekhar B. Saraf, J:- I agree.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 505
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Income Tax Appeal No. 422 of 2006

The
Commissioner
of
Income
Tax
(Central) Kanpur ...Appellant
Versus
Sri Umang Agarwal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
S.C., C.S.C., R.K. Upadhyaya

Counsel for the Respondent:
R.R. Agarwal, Suyash Agarwal

Tax Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Sections 139, 143, 158-BB(1)(ca), 15-BB,
158-BC & 263 - Civil Procedure Code,
1908 - Order 47 - Rules 1 - Sections 114
& 151- Review Petition - against High Court's
order - whereby court had allowed the income
Tax Appeal setting aside the order passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and remanded
the matter to the Tribunal with certain
observation - seeking review - on the ground
that court failed to address key legal and factual
issues - and most notably, that delayed in filing
of the income tax return under Section 139 was
due to the seizure of account books by tax
authorities, and therefore, declaring the return
"non-est" was unjust - The Income Tax
Department opposed the review as unjustified,
claiming due process was followed and the
return was rightly treated as 'non-est' - Court
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clarified that, the strict scope of review
jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 and
Section 114 of the CPC - a review is only
allowed in the case of a clear error apparent
on the face of the record, and not for
rehearing or correcting a possibly erroneous
but reasoned judgment - held, review is not
an appeal in disguise - and earlier remark
calling the ITR "non-est" was not its final
conclusion but rather an obiter or passing
comment - hence, order in question does
not suffer from an error on the face of
record - so as to persuade this court to
review the order - accordingly, the review
petition is rejected. (Para - 6, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17)

Review Petition Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2015 (Umang
Agarwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle, Allahabad,

2. St. of West Bengal Vs Confederation of St.
Government Employees, (2019) 3 Cal LJ 351,

3. Chhajju Ram Vs Neki , 1922 SCC OnLine
PC 11 : (1921-22) 49 IA 144 : AIR 1922 PC
112],

4. Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs Mar
Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526],

5. Lily Thomas Vs U.O.I., (2000) 6 SCC 224 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 1056,

6. Meera Bhanja Vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
[(1995) 1 SCC 170],

7. Parsion Devi Vs Sumitri Devi reported in
(1997) 8 SCC 715,

8. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs Govt. of A.P.
[AIR 1964 SC 1372],

9. Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs Pishak Sharma
reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389,

10. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs Assam SEB
(2020) 2 SCC 677,

11. Perry Kansagra Vs Smriti Madan Kansagra
(2019) 20 SCC 753,

12. S. Murali Sundaram Vs Jothibai Kannan &
ors., (2023) 13 SCC 515,

13. Pancham Lal Pandey Vs Neeraj Kumar
Mishra & ors., AIR 2023 (SC) 948,

14. M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs Commissioner Trade
Tax, Lucknow, 2024 (6) ADJ 248,

15. M/s. M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs
Iftikhar Alam, 2024 (5) ADJ 708,

16. Rajendra Singh Vs Lt. Governor, Andaman
and Nicobar Islands & ors., (2005) 13 SCC 289,

17. Board of Control for Cricket in India & anr.
Vs Netaji Cricket Club & ors., (2005) 4 SCC 741.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

Order on Civil Misc. Review Application
No.203788 of 2014

1. Heard Shri Manish Goyal
alongwith Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal,
both learned Senior Advocates, assisted by
Shri Suyash Agarwal and Shri Nitin Kumar
Kesarwani for the applicant in review and
Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for
the respondent-Income Tax Department.

2. The instant application under
Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short
'the Code') on behalf of assessee seeks
review of the final judgement and order dated
16.05.2014 whereby this Court had allowed
Income Tax Appeal No. 422 of 2006 [The
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),
Kanpur vs. Shri Umang Agarwal, Allahabad]
setting aside the order dated 26.05.2006
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Allahabad in ITR No.464/ALLd./05 for the
block period w.e.f. 01.04.1996 to 04.09.2002
3 All. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Kanpur Vs. Sri Umang Agarwal
507
and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with
certain observations.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT-ASSESSEE

3. Shri Manish Goyal, learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing
for
the
applicant/assessee submits that there is an
error apparent on the face of the record,
inasmuch as, this Court has neither
answered the substantial question of law,
on which, the appeal had been admitted on
15.05.2012 nor has it dealt with significant
factual aspects of the matter. Submission is
that the assessee had paid advance tax of
Rs.5,71,000/- on 14.03.2002, a search
operation
was
conducted
by
the
Department on 04.09.2002 wherein account
books and other documents of the applicant
were seized. According to him, 31.10.2002
was the due date for filing return for the
Financial Year 2001-2002, (Assessment
Year 2002-2003), however, since the
account
books
were
seized
by
the
Department prior to the said due date and
the seized materials and books were
received
from
the
Department
on
05.07.2004, the applicant filed return under
Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(in short 'the Act') on 01.09.2004 after
obtaining audit report, whereafter block
assessment
order
was
passed
on
30.09.2004; regular assessment order was
passed on 29.03.2006 which was assailed
before the CIT (Central) Kanpur on
16.08.2005 by way of appeal. The appeal
was
allowed
in
favour
of
the
applicant/assessee on 26.06.2006 holding
that provisions of Section 158-BB(1)(ca)
would apply in favour of the assessee. Shri
Goyal further submits that this Court, while
passing the order under review, has grossly
erred in ignoring the vital aspect of the
matter that the inability on the part of the
assessee to file return before the due date
was seizure of the books of accounts and
other materials prior to the arriving of the
said date and the documents having been
released on 05.07.2004, this Court wrongly
held the ITR filed on 01.09.2004 as nonest. Submission is that had this Court taken
into consideration the aforesaid aspect, as
emphatically
pressed
through
written
arguments submitted after the judgement
was reserved in the appeal, the order would
have been in favour of the assessee and not
against him. In support of submission that
this Court is competent to correct errors to
prevent miscarriage of justice and should
not hesitate in reviewing its own order
when the interest of justice so demands in
appropriate cases, reliance has been placed
on the following authorities:-

(i). Rajendra Singh vs. Lt.
Governor, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands and others, (2005) 13
SCC 289;
(ii). Board of Control for
Cricket in India and another vs.
Netaji Cricket Club and others,
(2005) 4 SCC 741.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
I.T. DEPARTMENT

4. Per contra, Shri Ashish Agrawal,
learned counsel for the Department submits
that the instant review application is not
maintainable inasmuch as, this Court
passed a well-reasoned order and under the
garb of review, the applicant is expecting
this Court to sit in appeal over its own
decision. On merits of the contention
advanced as regards applicability of one or
the other provision or other factual aspects,
learned counsel submits that the Assessing
Officer had made assessment for block
period w.e.f. 01.04.1996 to 04.09.2002 by
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his order dated 30.09.2004, categorically
recording that seized materials were handed
over by Investigating Wing, Allahabad and
on 09.09.2003, whereafter, by an order
dated 05.12.2003, assessee was called upon
to inspect the seized material and obtain
photocopy thereof. The assessment order
further
records
that
inspection
and
photocopying work was carried out w.e.f.
31.12.2003 to 28.05.2004, print outs of
CPUs and floppies seized were carried out
in the presence of the assessee's authorized
representative and two witnesses, a notice
under Section 158-BC was issued to the
assessee on 08.06.2004 requiring him to
prepare a true and correct return of his total
income in the prescribed form and to
deliver the same in the Department's Office
within twenty days; such notice was served
upon assessee on 09.06.2004; the assessee
requested for extension of time for filing
return, which extension was granted to him
upto 45th day i.e. 24.07.2004, however, no
return was filed by that date. Shri Agrawal
further submits that the assessee was not
co-operative in the proceedings and had
taken much time in inspection and
photocopying work, which continued for
about five months. By referring to the
computations made by the Assessing
officer in his order dated 30.09.2004, it is
urged that in the Assessment Year 20022003, total income of the assessee was
shown as Rs.1,08,03,703/-, his disclosed
income
being
Rs.53,27,810/-
and
undisclosed income Rs. 54,75,893/- and,
accordingly, the block assessment was done
in accordance with law. Referring to the
order dated 16.08.2005 passed under
Section 263 of the Act, it is urged that CIT
(Central) Kanpur found the return under
Section 139 as non-est and the assessment
order dated 30.09.2004 was set aside on a
limited issue of redetermination of the
undisclosed income for the Assessment
Year 2002-2003. Submission is that the said
order was set aside by this Court after
considering the entire facts of the case and,
since, this Court had remanded the matter
to the Appellate Tribunal, review of the
order is not a remedy and, in case, the
assessee was aggrieved by the order sought
to be reviewed, he should have filed an
appeal. On the scope of review, learned
counsel for the Department has placed
reliance on the following authorities:-

(i) S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai
Kannan and others, (2023) 13 SCC 515;
(ii). Pancham Lal Pandey vs.
Neeraj Kumar Mishra and others, AIR 2023
(SC) 948;
(iii). M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. vs.
Commissioner Trade Tax, Lucknow, 2024
(6) ADJ 248;
(iv). M/s. M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd.
And another vs. Iftikhar Alam, 2024 (5)
ADJ 708.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT-ASSESSEE IN REJOINDER

5. As far as remedy of appeal is
concerned, Shri Goyal submits that as per
Section 114 and Order XVLII Rule 1 of the
Code, review lies when an appeal lies but
has not been preferred or when no appeal
lies. Submission is that since, against final
order of this Court in appeal, no appeal is
provided under the Act before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and it is only by way of
grant of special leave to file appeal that an
appeal can be entertained by the Supreme
Court, it is a case where no statutory appeal
lies and, hence, the review of the order was
rightly sought. He, otherwise, submits that
the applicant has been taxed twice in the
matter, i.e. he has been made liable to pay
tax in regular assessment proceedings as
well as for block assessment and since this
3 All. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Kanpur Vs. Sri Umang Agarwal
509
Court, in the order sought to be reviewed,
had held the ITR filed under Section 139 of
the IT Act as "non-est", when the order of
remand passed by this Court was given
effect to, the Appellate Tribunal has, by
order dated 25.08.2014, dismissed the
appeal by observing that since the High
Court has already held the ITR as non-est,
it would be treated as non-est. Submission
is that challenging the subsequent order
dated 25.08.2014, the applicant-assessee
has filed Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2015
(connected with this review application)
and, therefore, not only the order dated
16.05.2014 is required to be reviewed and
set aside but also the consequential order
dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Appellate
Tribunal and the connected appeal be also
allowed.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

6. First of all, we would like to
narrate the scope of review application as
per Order XVLII Rule 1 of the Code. The
said provision finds place in procedural
part of the Code and as far as substantive
part thereof is concerned, Section 114 is the
relevant provision. Even if we accept the
submission of Shri Goyal that appeal
against order of the Appellate Court is
entertained by Hon'ble Supreme Court only
after special leave is granted by the Apex
Court and, hence, as a matter of course, no
statutory appeal is provided under the Act
before the Supreme Court, irrespective of
maintainability of review application for
any reason whatsoever, including nonavailability of remedy of statutory appeal,
such application has to be considered as per
the contours of Rule 1 of Order XVLII of
the Code. The said Rule clearly provides
that review can be sought on discovery of
new and important matters or evidence
which, after exercise of due diligence, was
not within knowledge of the applicant or
could not be produced by him at the time
when the order was passed or on account of
some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record or for any other sufficient
reason.

7. The Supreme Court, in S.
Murali Sundaram (supra), after placing
reliance on Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti
Madan Kansagra (2019) 20 SCC 753,
observed that while exercising the review
jurisdiction in an application under Order
47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the
Review Court does not sit in appeal over its
own order; a rehearing of the matter is
impermissible in law; review is not appeal
in disguise; power of review can be
exercised for correction of a mistake but
not to substitute a view; such powers can
be exercised within the limits of the statute
dealing with the exercise of power; it is
wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency
to rewrite a judgment by which the
controversy has been finally decided. It was
summed up as under:

"(i) Review proceedings
are not by way of appeal and have
to be strictly confined to the scope
and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may
be exercised when some mistake or
error apparent on the fact of record
is found. But error on the face of
record must be such an error which
must strike one on mere looking at
the record and would not require
any
long
drawn
process
of
reasoning on the points where there
may conceivably by two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may
not be exercised on the ground that
the decision was erroneous on
merits.
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(iv) Power of review can
also be exercised for any sufficient
reason which is wide enough to
include a misconception of fact or
law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An
application
for
review may be necessitated by way
of invoking the doctrine actus
curiae neminem gravabit."

8. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd.
vs. Assam SEB (2020) 2 SCC 677, it was
held that scope of review under Order 47
Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is
limited and under the guise of review, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate
and reargue questions which have already
been addressed and decided; that an error
which is not self evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can
hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of record justifying the court to
exercise its power of review under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC.

9. In Pancham Lal Pandey
(supra), the Supreme Court observed that
the provision of review is not to scrutinize
the correctness of the decision rendered
rather to correct the error, if any, which is
visible on the face of the order / record
without going into as to whether there is a
possibility of another opinion different
from the one expressed. In M/s. Tata Steel
Ltd.(supra), reliance was placed by this
Court on Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v.
Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC
389, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
propounded
that
review
power
and
appellate power are inherently distinct.
While the appellate power enables the
courts to rectify all manners of errors in the
judgment or order under challenge, review
power does not. In Parsion Devi v Sumitri
Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court espoused that the
power under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC,
1908 does not allow for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected." In
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt.
of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5
SCR 174] (SCR at p. 186), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court opined that there is a
distinction which is real, though it might
not always be capable of exposition,
between a mere erroneous decision and a
decision which could be characterised as
vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by
no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous
decision
is
reheard
and
corrected, but lies only for patent error.
Similar view was taken in Meera Bhanja
v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1
SCC 170].

10. In Lily Thomas v. Union of
India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 1056 , it is observed and held that the
power of review can be exercised for
correction of a mistake but not to substitute
a view. Such powers can be exercised
within the limits of the statute dealing with
the exercise of power. It is further observed
in the said decision that the words "any
other sufficient reason" appearing in Order
47 Rule 1 CPC must mean "a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to
those specified in the rule" as was held in
Chhajju Ram v. Neki , 1922 SCC OnLine
PC 11 : (1921-22) 49 IA 144 : AIR 1922
PC 112] and approved in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose
Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526]

11. In M/s. M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt.
Ltd. (supra), one of us (Kshitij Shailendra,
J.), gainfully referred to the abovenoted
authorities on the subject and observed that
since Section 114 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, being the substantive provision
3 All. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Kanpur Vs. Sri Umang Agarwal
511
for review, clearly uses the words "the
Court may make such order thereon",
power to allow or reject a review
application depends on discretion of the
Court in given facts and circumstances of a
particular case and the Court is not bound
to allow the application in every case and
situation.

12. One of us (Shekhar B. Saraf,
J.), after placing reliance upon various
decisions
of
the
Supreme
Court,
pronounced a judgment for the Division
Bench of Calcutta High Court in State of
West Bengal vs. Confederation of State
Government Employees, (2019) 3 Cal LJ
351 and culled out the principles emerging
for reviewing the judgement/order holding
that power of review is quite limited and
would be governed by the principles under
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. It was further
held that the third condition "for any other
sufficient reason" has to be read within the
four corners of the first two conditions and
an error which is not self-evident and has to
be detected by the process of reasoning is
not an error apparent on the face of the
record. It was further held that a review
petition cannot be allowed to be an "appeal
in disguise".

13. As far as judgments cited on
behalf of the applicant i.e. Rajender Singh
(supra) and Board of Control for Cricket
in India (supra) are concerned, though it is
true that the Courts should not hesitate to
review their own order when interest of
justice so demands in appropriate cases, the
Supreme Court has clearly observed that
this can be done only when there exists an
error on the face of record and the words
"sufficient reason" used in Order XLVII
Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to
include misconception of fact or law of a
Court. We have to consider the ratio laid
down in the authorities cited at the Bar in
the given facts of the present case and we
find that this Court, while deciding the
Income Tax Appeal No.422 of 2006 by
order dated 16.05.2014, though quoted a
substantial question of law framed on
15.05.2012, but refrained to answer the
same for the reason that, after setting aside
the order under challenge before it, had
remanded the matter to the Appellate
Tribunal.

ITR U/S 139, WHETHER NONEST

14. Insofar as the observation of
this court that ITR filed under Section 139
of the Act had become 'non-est', after
carefully going into the complete order
dated 16.05.2014 in its spirit, we find that
the observation of 'non-est' was not the
ratio or the conclusion drawn by this Court,
otherwise there was no necessity to remand
the matter to the Appellate Tribunal. The
said observation appearing at 'internal page
No.5' of the order can either be treated as
an argument advanced on behalf of the
Department or, if not, it can be treated as an
'obiter.' It was infact a passing remark
made by the Court during the course of
deciding the appeal and, therefore, when
the matter was remanded to the Appellate
Tribunal, it cannot be said that this Court
had expressed any final opinion regarding
ITR under Section 139 as "non-est".

15. In the facts of the case, it has to
be seen as to when the due date for filing
return i.e. 31.10.2002 had lapsed but, prior
thereto, account books and other material
of the assessee were seized on 01.09.2002
and when the block assessment was being
done, whether it was at all necessary for the
assessee to file a belated return after the
seized material was released in favour of
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the assessee or if at all it was filed, whether such
filing could be fatal to his case or whether the
assessee was precluded from filing return
though inspection was facilitated to him. The
inter-se
connection
between
regular
proceedings
vis-a-vis
block
assessment
proceedings in the peculiar facts of the case, is a
question that has relevance so as to adjudge the
issue of double jeopardy allegedly faced by the
assessee, as argued on his behalf.

NON-ANSWERING THE
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION WHETHER A
GROUND FOR REVIEW

16. We are of the view that if the
substantial question of law framed as regards
applicability of correct clause/sub-clause of any
Section/sub-Section of Section 158-BB of the
IT Act was not answered by this Court while
deciding the appeal, the same, in itself, cannot
be a ground to review the order, inasmuch as,
the point was left open by the Court to be
decided in appeal after remand, i.e. to say that
the ingredients of the substantial question of law
were to be re-determined by the Appellate
Tribunal pursuant to the order of remand.
Therefore, when Shri Goyal submits that the
Appellate Tribunal, after remand, has accepted
the finding of this Court as regards the ITR
under Section 139 being "non-est" and,
therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal be
also set aside on this ground alone, we are of the
view that the present review application and the
connected appeal are to be decided in the light
of scope of two different and independent
proceedings, i.e. one being an application for
review and the other being a statutory appeal
and, hence, we would do accordingly.

CONCLUSION
17. While applying the ratio laid down
in the aforementioned authorities on the scope
of review, we find that not only the block
assessment order dated 30.09.2004 but also the
assessment order 29.03.2006 and orders passed
subsequently i.e. on 16.08.2005 and 26.06.2006
contained discussion of material that was
available
before
the Authorities/Tribunal.
Merely because this Court interpreted the
record of proceedings in one way or the other,
we do not find that there is any error apparent
on the face of the record so as to justify exercise
of our review jurisdiction. At the same time, the
effect of order dated 16.05.2014 on the
proceedings culminating into passing of the
subsequent order dated 25.08.2014 after
remand, has to be seen while deciding the
connected Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2015
(Umang Agarwal vs. The Commissioner of
Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad) but, in
any case, we are of the considered view that the
order dated 16.05.2014 does not suffer from an
error apparent on the face of the record so as to
persuade this Court to review the order and take
another view of the matter different from the
one taken by this Court in its order dated
16.05.2014.

18. With the above observations, the
application for review stands rejected.

19. Shekhar B. Saraf,J.: I agree.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 512
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHBAD 06.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 75 of 2025

Smt. Renu ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vinay Kumar Singh