M/s Sumeet Gems And Jewellers Private Limited V. Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department Of Revenue and Central Board of Direct Taxes and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Circle (1) Raipur and Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1 Raipur and Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Madhya Pradesh And Chhattisgarh

REVP/17/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a review petition filed by M/s Sumeet Gems And Jewellers Private Limited against the order of the High Court dated 05.12.2023, which mistakenly noted that the petitioner had withdrawn a notice. The petitioner contended that the notice was never withdrawn and that an application for recalling an earlier order dated 15.01.2019 had been filed with the Settlement Commission. The court acknowledged the error and corrected the record to reflect that the notice had not been withdrawn and that the Revenue had indeed filed an application with the Settlement Commission.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695226 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: APURV GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT CHAUDHARI; AJAY KHUMRANI
• Keywords: Notice Withdrawal; Review petition; Settlement commission; Writ petition
• Section: 245D(7); 245D(6)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 2 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 17 of 2024 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Circle (1) Raipur, Having His Office At Aayakr Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001. (Respondent No. 3 In The Writ Petitioner) 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1 Raipur, Having His Office At Aayakr Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001. (Respondent No. 4 In The Writ Petition.) 3. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Madhya Pradesh And Chhattisgrh, Having Office At Aaykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Arera Colony, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 462026. (Respondent No. 5 In The Writ Petition) ---- Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Having His Office At The Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. (Respondent No. 1 In The Writ Petition) 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Having It Office At The North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi - 110002. (Respondent No. 2 In The Writ Petition) 3. M/s Sumeet Gems And Jewellers Private Limited, A Company Within The Meaning Of The Companies Act, 213, Through Its Authorized Signatory And Director Shri Ankit Kankariya, Aged About 33 Years, Having Its Registered Office At Tahir Plaza, Malviya Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001. (Petitioner In The Writ Petition) --- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Chaudhari with Mr. Ajay Khumrani, Advocates For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate ______________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09/ 02/ 2024 1. The petitioner has prayed for review of the order passed by this Court on 05.12.2023 in WPT No. 140 of 2023 mainly contending that this Court while disposing the writ petition has observed that they have withdrawn the notice wherein they have not withdraw the notice. He would further submit that this is the apparent mistake on the face of the record has neither notice was withdrawn nor any decision has been taken to withdraw the same. He would further submit that subsequently the application for recalling of the order dated 15.01.2019 has already been filed before the Settlement Commission. In view of the above factual matrix, he would pray for review of the order date 05.12.2023. 2. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Considering the submission, paragraph 5 is deleted and it be added that the Revenue authority has already been filed application before the Settlement Commission. Similarly paragraph-6 be deleted and modified to the extent that the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer has lost its efficacy as the Revenue has already moved an application under Section 245D (6) and 245 D(7) of the I.T. Act. Paragraph -7 is also deleted and it be replaced as the Revenue has already filed an application under Section 245D (6) and 245 D(7) of the I.T. Act before the Settlement Commission, as such other part of the order passed by this Court shall remain intact. 4. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh "