The main legal point established is that in the absence of a statutory provision providing for review, a revisional authority cannot entertain a review application against a judicial or quasi-judicial order.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dt. 31st March, 2003, by which the learned revisional authority, i. e. , CIT has disposed of the revision application filed by the petitioner-assessee, under Section 264 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961) being aggrieved by the demand contained in letter dt. 11th March, 2002.

( 2 ) HEARD S/shri R. P. Agarwal and V. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

( 3 ) WHILE arguing the revision application by the representative of the assessee, it has vehemently been submitted that demand letter dt. 11th March, 2002, had been issued by the assessing authority without any merit. In memo of revision, the said ground had been taken that it was specifically agitated by the assessees representative. In the impugned order, the revisional authority, instead of dealing with it and deciding it on merit, has brushed it aside saying that the issue had not been pressed.

( 4 ) IT has been submitted that once the ground had been taken in revision and has been agitated before the revisional authority, there was no occasion for the revisional authority to record that the issue had not been pressed and therefore, it has been submitted by Shri Agrawal that the petition deserves to be allowed only on this ground.

( 5 ) SHRI Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that if petitioner is aggrieved of the said order of the revisional authority on this issue, he ought to have filed the review or rectification application before the revisional authority. However, Shri Chopra could not point out any provision in the Act providing for review.

( 6 ) IN absence of any statutory provision providing for review, the review could not be entertained against a judicial or quasi-judicial order XX (sic) at least, rectification application under Section 154.

( 7 ) IN Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar AIR 1965 SC 1457, the honble Supreme Court had held that in absence of any power of review, the Tribunal could not have subsequently reconsidered its previous decision and the subsequent order reopening the matter was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

( 8 ) IN Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh AIR 1966 SC 641, the Honble apex Court has held that in absence of any provision in the Act granting express power of review, it is manifest that review could not be made and the order in review was ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction and the high Court has rightly quashed it by the grant of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 9 ) WHILE deciding the said case, the Honble Supreme Court placed reliance on a large number of judgments, particularly in Drew v. Mills (1891) 1 OB 450; Hession v. Johns- (1914) 2 KB 421; st. Nazaire Co. , In re (1879) 12 Ch. D. 88; and Baijnath Ram Goyanka v. Nand Kumar Singh 14 indian Appeal 54 (PC), wherein it had categorically been held that the power of setting aside an order, which has been made after hearing the arguments, does not lie unless it is given by the statute. The Court, under the statute, cannot review an order deliberately made after argument and entertain a fresh argument upon it with a view to ultimately confirming or reversing it. The courts may have limited power only to make a necessary correction if the order, as drawn up, did not express the intention of the Court. A party is entitled to assail the judgment only by the mode as indicated in the statute and in absence of express provision of review, it cannot be entertained for the reason that review is practically the hearing of an appeal by the same officer who decided the case.

( 10 ) IN Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji AIR 1970 SC 1273, the Honble apex Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary impli