THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, V. M/S H M CONSTRUCTIONS

RP/337/2014

AI Insights

The case involves a review petition filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s H M Constructions, seeking to review the judgment dated 20.1.2014 concerning the reopening of an assessment beyond the permissible period. The original judgment had noted the absence of any order from the Commissioner approving the reopening under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The review was based on a communication from the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, claiming that approval had been conveyed. However, the court found this communication insufficient as it did not specify the date of approval or provide the Commissioner's order or reasons for reopening the assessment. The court emphasized that the scope of review is limited and cannot be used as a means to readdress the court on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744914 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Keywords: Delay in filing; Error apparent on the face of the record; Reopening of assessment; Review petition
• Section: 151

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 30th day of October, 2015 Present THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINEET SARAN & THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B MANOHAR Review Petition 337 / 2014 in ITA 635 / 2006 Between 1 Commissioner of Income Tax C R Building, Queens Road Bangalore 2 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(3), C R Building Queens Road, Bangalore Petitioners (By Sri K V Aravind, Adv.) And M/s H M Constructions Geneva House # 14, Cunningham Road Bangalore 52 Respondent Review Petition is filed under O 41 R 1, CPC praying to review/recall the order dated 20.1.2014 in ITA 635/2006. Petition coming on for Orders this day, Vineet Saran J., made the following: 2 ORDER This is an application filed by the Revenue for reviewing the judgment and order dated 20.1.2014 which was passed by a Division Bench of the Court after hearing learned counsel for parties and also after summoning and looking into the records relating to assessment. The matter involved in the appeal was with regard to reopening of the assessment which was beyond the period of four years. In the order which is sought to be reviewed, it has been categorically mentioned that neither there was any order of the Commissioner granting approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act nor there was any indication in the orders passed by the authorities below, including the Tribunal nor was there any material on record to show that such approval had been obtained. In fact, by the said order, this Court had directed an inquiry to be conducted with regard to disappearance of the records relating to the assessment proceedings of the assessee. 3 This review petition has now been filed on the basis of one communication made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax stating therein that the former had been directed to convey the approval for reopening of the assessment. It is a copy of such letter which was marked to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, which has been filed. The same does not even indicate as to on which date such approval had been accorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Basing his arguments on such letter, learned counsel submits that due approval had been accorded by the Commissioner and thus, the judgment passed by this Court be reviewed. We may mention here that along with the review petition also, neither the order of the Commissioner has been filed nor the reasons, if any recorded for reopening the assessment have been filed. It is well settled legal position that the scope of review is very limited and the order/judgment can be reviewed only if it is established that it suffers from error apparent on the face of the record 4 or any other sufficient reason. It is not an appeal in disguise. By means of a review petition, a litigant cannot get another occasion to re-address the court again on merits. For the reasons given hereinabove, we do not find any good ground to review the order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the appeal. Office has also pointed out that this review petition has been filed with a delay of 58 days. We examined the said application also and we do not find any good ground to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay, as well as the review petition, are dismissed. Sd/- Judge sd/- Judge An "