PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT V. SHRI MANJIT SINGH BHATIA

RP/449/2020

AI Insights

The case involves two review petitions filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against Shri Manjit Singh Bhatia and Shri Manjeet Singh Bhatia, seeking to review an earlier order that declined interference based on Circular No. 17/2019. The petitions were heard together due to their similar nature. The main legal contention revolved around the scope of review jurisdiction and whether the circumstances of the case fell within the parameters that would allow for a review of the previous decision. The court reiterated the limited nature of review jurisdiction, emphasizing that it does not extend to re-evaluating the merits of the case but rather to correcting errors apparent on the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697325 (HC-MADHYA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhatia
• Laws Referred To: Circular No. 17/2019, Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: VEENA MANDLIK
• Keywords: Circulars; Legal parameters; Organized tax evasion; Tax Evasion; Review jurisdiction
• Section: 47(1)

Judgement Text

" The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh RP-449-2020 (PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Vs SHRI MANJIT SINGH BHATIA) AND RP-454-2020 (PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs SHRI MANJEET SINGH BHATIA) Indore, Dated : 11-08-2021 Heard through Video Conferencing. Ms. Veena mandlik, learned counsel for the petitioners. Regard being had to the similitude of the matters, on the request of learned counsel for the review petitioner,, the matters are analogously heard. 2. These petitions seek review of order dated 04/12/2019, whereby interference was declined in view of the circular no. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the cases of organized tax evasion, the said circular is not an impediment. This Court, on more than three occasions in different languages, repeated the same question, as to what is the scope of review jurisdiction. In other words, what are the parameters, on which, the Court can exercise review jurisdiction and in petitioners' case, which parameter is attracted and for what reason. Sadly, we received no answer from learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. This is trite that review jurisdiction is limited and is akin to principle analogous to Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners informed that almost similar Review Petition no. 442/2020 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1 Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhatia) was also dismissed by this Court on 23/07/2021. This order reads as under : “1/ Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that this Court on the basis of Circular No.3/2018 dated 20.8.2018 and Circular dated 8.8.2019 opined that monetary limit was enhanced up to Rs.1 Crore in respect of the High Court. A further clarificatory circular was issued on 6.9.2019 and Department has been permitted, irrespective of valuation, to file an appeal on merits in cases involved in organized tax evasion activity. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for and permitted to withdraw the appeal. 2/ The review is prayed for in the teeth of Para 10(e) of the Circular dated 20.8.2018, which reads as under:- “10(e). Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/ SFIO / Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).” 3/ Ms. Mandlik, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that during the course of submission of scrutiny report (obtained after the order under review passed by the High Court), it was observed by the assessing officer i.e. ACIT, Indore that the search and seizure operation was conducted by the Indore Tax Department and DG, Central Excise Intelligence, Indore which concluded that respondent is associated with Signet Group of Indore and was involved in organized activities of tax evasion, which led ultimately the addition made by the AO. Thus, Clause 10(e) aforesaid is attracted. 4/ On more than one occasion, the Bench put a question to Ms. Mandlik when this scrutiny report was prepared and whether any such material in this regard is produced to show that such report falls within the ambit of Para-10(e) but no response is received by the Bench. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioners has not chosen to answer as to how the aforesaid falls within the ambit of review jurisdiction. 5/ This is trite that the power of review is limited. Unless it is shown that there exists an error apparent on the record or any other ingredients which are in consonance with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, interference in review jurisdiction cannot be made. Unfortunately no argument is advanced to bring the present matter within the ambit of principles analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In absence thereof, the question of exercising the review jurisdiction does not arise. 6/ The review petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.” 6. In absence of showing as to how review jurisdiction can be invoked and further showing ingredients, on which review jurisdiction can be exercised, interference is declined. 7. Accordingly, both review petitions are dismissed. C c as per rules. (SUJOY PAUL ) ( ANIL VERMA) JUDGE JUDGE Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2021.08.13 11:08:51 +05'30' "