Judgment : T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. This application has been filed by the assessee seeking review of the Judgment dated 29.11.2013 made in T.C.A.No.215 of 2008. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in paragraph No.91 of the Judgment, this Court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal that assumes incorrectly that the method of computation of profits for the assessment year 1996-97 has been adopted and accepted by the assessee for succeeding years. This, according to the learned counsel is erroneous, as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of the assessment year 1998-99, has accepted the computation of profits of the assessee and the same has attained finality. The learned counsel further submitted that the said order dated 25.04.2007 was circulated before this Court, when the main appeal was heard and insofar as the computation of profits for the succeeding assessment year has been accepted, the order of the Tribunal and the order of this Court at paragraph No.91, confirming the order of the Tribunal contain a patent error in law and hence liable to be reviewed. Further, the learned counsel submitted that this Court has not taken into account that the computation of profits from M/s Balaji Industrial Corporation was on the basis of the formula as accepted by the assessee and the Department for the assessment year 1998-99. Further, the learned counsel contended that the assumption of the Tribunal of the fact that for succeeding years, the assessee's computation has not been accepted, is wholly erroneous. Further, the learned counsel reiterates that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007 ought to have considered by this Court as it is a vital document. Based on the above grounds, the learned counsel for the assessee seeks review of the order passed in T.C.A.No.215 of 2008 dated 29.11.2013. 3. We have issued notice to the respondent/revenue and we have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side elaborately. 4. Before we proceed to examine the merits of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, it would be benefitial to take note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of an application for review. 4. Before we proceed to examine the merits of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, it would be benefitial to take note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of an application for review. "...The limitations on exercise of power of review has been well settled and the first requirement for entertaining a review is that the order which is sought to be reviewed should suffer from error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand, will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of such error, finality attached to the order cannot be distributed. It has been further held that the power of review can also be exercised by the Court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place, which despite exercise of due diligent was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. Further a review would lie, if the order has been passed on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. It has been further held that it is beyond any doubt or dispute that the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order and rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law, as review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view and such power can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with exercise of power. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderchand Jain (Dead) vs. Motilal (Dead) reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 , summarized the law on the exercise the power of review 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 be two opinions. 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 be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (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.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 , held that the term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error, which is evident perse from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. To put it differently an order or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court on a point of fact or law. The Court while exercising the power of review, cannot sit in appeal over its decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission reported in 2007 (5) CTC 881, explaining the term 'error' contemplated under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC held that it is not an error, which has to be fished out and searched, rather it must be an error of inadvertence, it should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record, an error cease to be a mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court and if the error is so apparent that without further investigation only one conclusion can be drawn, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Further, under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, we examine the contentions before us. 5. Firstly, the learned counsel for the assessee by relying upon the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007 for the assessment year 1998-99, submitted that the correct figure to be adopted for the denominator in calculating the gross profits for each year should be 16,80,53,026/- instead of Rs.29,35,03,026/-. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to page No.4 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007. Therefore, it is submitted that this amount ought to have been rectified. It is further submitted that when the order dated 25.04.2007 was placed before this Court, this Court, made an erroneous observation in paragraph No.91 of its order by stating as if that the assessee has adopted similar method in the next year and therefore this Court agreed that the findings of the Tribunal that the denominator should also be the total registered value instead of total receipts. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the assessee and perusing the materials placed, we find that the contention raised by the learned counsel referring to page No.4 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007 is thoroughly misconceived. In fact, the portion which was referred to at page No.4 of the said order is in fact the observation or the opinion of the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while considering the correctness of the said observation has referred to in detail the entire issue and in page 9 of the order has observed that the contention of the assessee regarding allocation of profits arising out of the entire project over the impugned three assessment years in the light of the order dated 15.10.2004 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is correct. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) rejected the contention of the Assessing Officer that the profits amounting to Rs.4,81,04,107/-would remain unapportioned to any assessment year and further observed that the Assessing Officer misinterpreted the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and applied the ratio of 0.38345 to the cost of land registered during the different assessment years. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) rejected the contention of the Assessing Officer that the profits amounting to Rs.4,81,04,107/-would remain unapportioned to any assessment year and further observed that the Assessing Officer misinterpreted the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and applied the ratio of 0.38345 to the cost of land registered during the different assessment years. Further, it was observed that the appropriate method which ought to have been followed by the Assessing Officer would be to apply the said ratio to the gross receipts from M/s BIC in different assessment years and in that case no ambiguity would have arisen at all and on the said basis which is correct to them, the assessee has filed a revised computation of income in the course of re-assessment proceedings and the assessee has not preferred any appeal against the order dated 15.10.2004. For better appreciation the finding rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) is quoted below:- "4.1.3 The arguments put forward by the ld. A.Rs. have carefully been examined v is-a-vis the contention raised by the A.O. in the re-assessment order. After carefully analyzing the facts relating to the appellant's case, I find that the contention of the ld. A.R. regarding the allocation of profit arising out of the entire project over the impugned three A.Ys in the light of the order dated 15.10.2004 of the CIT (A)-VI, Chennai is correct. The argument of the A.O. that the profit amounting to Rs.4,81,04,107/- remained unapportioned to any A.y. is not tenable. She appears to have misinterpreted the order of the CIT(A)-VI. She applied the ratio of 0.38345 to the cost of land registered during the different A.Ys. The appropriate method which ought to have been followed by the A.O., would be to apply the said ratio to the gross receipts from M/s BIC in different A.Ys. In that case no ambiguity would have arisen at all. On the basis of this correct method, the appellant had filed a revised computation of income in the course of re-assessment proceedings. The appellant has also not preferred appeal against the order dated 15.10.2004 of the CIT(A)-VI. In that case no ambiguity would have arisen at all. On the basis of this correct method, the appellant had filed a revised computation of income in the course of re-assessment proceedings. The appellant has also not preferred appeal against the order dated 15.10.2004 of the CIT(A)-VI. At page 2 of the re-assessment order it is noticed that the A.O. has taken the value of sale deed at Rs.1,72,08,000/-for the A.Y. 1998-99 to arrive at the profit of Rs.65,98,407/-instead of adopting the sale proceeds for the year amounting to Rs.14,26,58,000/- which would have given rise to the actual profit of Rs.5,47,02,478/- as declared by the appellant finally. The profit figure for the A.Y. 1996-97 as arrived at by the A.O. was correct, because she had adopted the entire sale proceeds of Rs.13,17,51,816/- for that year. The fixation of the total consideration at Rs.29,35,03,026/-is a clear finding of fact and does not require any change. The A.O. has also accepted these figures. It is only the distribution of profits over the three A.Ys which was disputed by the A.O. by way of a miscellaneous petition before the CIT(A)-VI for the A.Y. 1996-97. According to me, the said miscellaneous petition is misplaced, because the adoption of the figure of Rs.16,80,53,026/-in the denominator only gives rise to an anomalous situation, as already indicated above. Thus, there remains no ambiguity about the gross profit for the A.Y. 1998-99. In the substantive assessment the A.O. has adopted the gross profit of the project for the year at Rs.5,47,02,514/-which marginally differs from the appellant's figure of Rs.5,47,02,478/-. Accordingly, the appellant has not disputed the A.O's gross profit figure. This now brings me to the second issue relating to the trading loss of Rs.6,10,44,859/-". 7. At this stage, it has to be pointed out that though the assessee has not preferred any appeal as against the order dated 15.10.2004, the revenue has preferred an appeal, which is the subject matter of T.C.A.No.215 of 2008. 8. Now, reverting back to the Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007, it was further pointed out by the Commissioner that the adoption of figure of Rs.16,80,53,026/-in the denominator could only gives rise to anomalous situation, which has been elaborately dealt with by the Commissioner in the said order. Therefore, it was held that there is no ambiguity about the gross profit for the assessement year 1998-1999. 9. Therefore, it was held that there is no ambiguity about the gross profit for the assessement year 1998-1999. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the observations made in paragraph No.92 of the Judgment is also erroneous in the matter relating to disallowance of proportionate interest. As already pointed out, no ground has been made by the assessee to dislodge the finding of the Tribunal and hence this Court has confirmed the finding of the Tribunal. 10. In the light of the above observation, we are of the firm view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the Judgment passed by this Court in T.C.A.No.215 of 2008, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. It is settled principle of law that review is not an appeal in disguise. The contention raised by the applicant would in effect amount to re-arguing the entire matter. The error to be pointed out in a review application should be manifest and apparent on the face of the record and cannot be fished out by the manner of thorough re-appreciation of materials placed. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007 was not taken into consideration also deserves to be rejected. 11. In that view of the matter, we find no error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the review application fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.