M/S BPS INFRASTRUCTURE V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

REVP/100/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s BPS Infrastructure, the petitioner, seeking a review of an order dated 12.04.2024 passed in TAXC No. 87/2024. The petitioner requested the matter to be remanded to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, for reconsideration under the provisions of the Income Tax Act/Rules, claiming that they were denied an adequate opportunity for a proper hearing, which they argued violated the principles of natural justice. The respondent, the Income Tax Officer Ward- 1(3), Raipur, supported the original order. The court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the review petition, stating that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and that the issues raised by the petitioner were not permissible to be raised in a review petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747711 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, Lily Thomas v. Union of India and others, Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, Sasi v. Aravindakshan Nair and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAO; MANOJ SINHA
• Keywords: Delay; Income tax appellate tribunal; Natural Justice; Remand; Review petition
• Section: 260A(4)

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 100 of 2024  M/s Bps Infrastructure Village Raseda, Baloda Bazar District- Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Pin 493332 Pan. Aa0fb 5038r ---- Petitioner Versus  The Income Tax Officer Ward- 1(3), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumrani on behalf of Mr. Amit Choudhari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28 .06.2024 1. Heard Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ajay Kumrani holding brief of Mr. Amit Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking review of the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in TAXC No. 87/2024 and thereby prays for remanding the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur for consideration of the application in light of provisions of Income Tax Act/ Rules. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the review petitioner has been denied adequate opportunity of proper hearing thereby denying the principles of natural justice which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The review petitioner, in addition to the pleadings in the memorandum of appeal, also filed brief written submissions and the Hon'ble Division Bench has been pleased to extract major part of the same in para-4 to para-7 of the order but did not advert upon the same through speaking order as to why the contentions are not acceptable and why the principles law laid down in the cases relied upon are distinguishable. As per sub-section (4) of section 260A of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to also deliberate upon the issue on merits while the learned Appellate Tribunal did not decide the appeal before it on merits and dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay. Hon'ble Division Bench ought to have considered the fact that learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the presumption that the delay was due to lackadaisical conduct of the petitioner while it is settled legal position that there cannot be any presumption about delay. As such the review petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would support the order under review. 5. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order under review. 6. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate 3 jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (pl. See Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692. 7. The grounds raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Ruchi "