A Review Is Not a Backdoor Appeal—A Misreading by the Tribunal Cannot Be Corrected Through a Second Judicial Guess: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Revisit ‘Non-Est’ ITR Remark

What the Court Observed Was Not Its Ratio—There Is No Patent Error in Calling an ITR ‘Non-Est’ When Filed Beyond Statutory Extensions - Allahabad High Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur v. Shri Umang Agarwal [ITA No. 422 of 2006 / Review Application No. 203788 of 2014] dismissed a review application seeking to reopen its 2014 judgment on the ground that it had incorrectly termed the assessee’s income tax return as “non-est.”
A Division Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and that the language used in the earlier order was merely an observation, not a conclusive finding that required reversal.
In unambiguous terms, the Court observed: “A review is not an appeal in disguise. No manifest injustice has occurred. The observation that the return was ‘non-est’ is not the ratio of the decision but at best a passing remark.”
“Delay in Filing Return Was Self-Created—Inaction Cannot Be Dressed as Justification”
The assessee had contended that his delayed return for AY 2002–03 should not have been declared ‘non-est’ since his books were under seizure by the Income Tax Department. However, the Court rejected this argument, pointing out that the assessee was granted extended time and yet failed to comply.
The Court recorded: “The petitioner was granted inspection. He was not cooperative. He had ample opportunity to comply within the extended statutory period, but chose otherwise. The delay, thus, cannot be judicially condoned after the fact.”
“The Tribunal Misread the Judgment—But Its Interpretation Cannot Be a Basis for Rewriting the Original Decision”
The review was primarily triggered by the ITAT’s subsequent decision, where it construed the High Court’s 2014 judgment as having held that the assessee’s return was a nullity. The High Court clarified that it had not conclusively declared the return non-est, and that its order was simply a remand.
Justice Shailendra emphasized: “If the Tribunal misunderstood our observation as binding, the assessee’s remedy lies elsewhere. We cannot rewrite our earlier judgment to cure a misinterpretation by a subordinate forum.”
“Not Every Silence Is an Error—Unanswered Questions Left Open for Adjudication Cannot Be Reframed in Review”
The assessee had also argued that the Court failed to answer the substantial question of law it had framed at the stage of admission. The Bench declined to treat this as an error, noting that the matter was remanded to the ITAT without finally deciding the question.
The Bench noted: “We consciously left the legal questions open for the Appellate Tribunal. This judicial restraint cannot be interpreted as an omission warranting review.”
“Error Apparent Must Be Self-Evident—Interpretive Disagreements Are Not Reviewable Under Law”
Rejecting the plea for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Court drew on well-established principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India and S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, affirming: “Review is available only for glaring errors, not to revisit conclusions or explore alternative interpretations. A plausible view, once taken, cannot be judicially substituted.”
The Court concluded that the 2014 order had merely remanded the matter without any binding pronouncement on the legality of the return, and there was no manifest error or miscarriage of justice warranting recall.
In its closing remark, the Court underscored the sanctity of finality: “Judgments are not revisited merely because a party reads more into them than what was written. Judicial decorum demands conclusion, not circularity.”
This ruling reiterates that the scope of review jurisdiction is narrow, not interpretive, and that courts are not bound to revisit their orders simply because a subordinate tribunal misapplied their reasoning. The Allahabad High Court has drawn a clear line between judicial error and perceived misreading, ensuring that finality is not sacrificed at the altar of procedural dissatisfaction.
As the Bench rightly concluded: “A court speaks once. If what was spoken is misunderstood, it cannot be compelled to speak again.”

Date of Decision: 26 March 2025