ARUN SUNNY V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

RP/662/2017

AI Insights

In the case of Arun Sunny vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the appellant, Arun Sunny, sought a review of the judgment in W.A. No. 1269 of 2014, which had dismissed his appeal regarding the waiver of interest on capital gains transactions. The review was based on the claim that the legal ratios from two cited cases were misapplied and that the Department's contentions were unsustainable. However, the court found that these issues were adequately addressed in the original judgment and that the misapplication of legal principles or disagreement with the Department's contentions did not warrant a review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755416 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jimmichan M. Varicatt, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sarabhai Sons Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: S NAIR
• Keywords: Capital Gains; Eligibility criteria; Income Tax; Interest Waiver; Review petition
• Section: 119(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2017/9TH SRAVANA, 1939 RP.No. 662 of 2017 () IN WA.1269/2014 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WA 1269/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-06-2017 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------ ARUN SUNNY, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE,XL/676,CHITTUR ROAD,KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIJAYAN NAYAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING,I.S.PRESS ROAD,KOCHI-682 018. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1),CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 662 of 2017 in W.A. No. 1269 of 2014 ( ) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of July, 2017. O R D E R Dama Seshadri Naidu,J. The review petitioner is the appellant in W.A. No. 1269 of 2014, charged with the task of paying interest on a transaction attracting capital gains. He failed to persuade the authorities to waive the interest in terms of the notifications issued by the CTBT under Section 119(2) of the Act. In the appeal, we were called upon to decide whether the appellant had fulfilled the eligibility criteria fixed under the notification. On merits, we dismissed the writ appeal. Now, the appellant has come up with this review petition. 2. Procedurally speaking, we confess our inability to understand what was sought to be reviewed. There are no grounds distinctly set apart why the judgment should be reviewed. Nevertheless, gathered from the narrative portion of the review petition and the oral submissions by the learned counsel before us, R.P. No. 662/2017 -2- we gather two issues, said to have been the errors apparent on the face of the record. 3. According to Sri S. Vijayan Nair, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the ratios of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jimmichan M. Varicatt1 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sarabhai Sons Pvt. Ltd.2 have been wrongly applied to the facts of this case. He has also contended that in paragraph 15 of the judgment, the contentions raised by the Department are totally unsustainable. So, he urges this Court to allow the review petition. 4. As we could see, the judgments referred to by the learned counsel have been dealt with elaborately in paragraphs 28 to 31 of the judgment under review. If the holding of those judgments has been wrongly applied, we do not think that it provides any ground for the petitioner to review the judgment. It could, in fact, be a substantial error that can be challenged before the appropriate forum. 5. As far as the contentions in paragraph 15 of the judgment are concerned, they are, simply put, the contentions raised by the 1 (2011) 330 ITR 338 (Kerala) 2 (1993) 204 ITR 728 (Guj) R.P. No. 662/2017 -3- respondents, and there can be no review regarding the rival contentions, which are not part of adjudication. Under these circumstances, we are unable to entertain the review petition and accordingly dismiss it. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. Rv R.P. No. 662/2017 -4- "