Rakesh Mahajan V. Commissioner of Income Tax

CMP.M/493/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Rakesh Mahajan, the petitioner, who sought to review a common judgment and order dated 09.09.2015, concerning ITAs No. 55/2009 & 38 of 2010, titled Commissioner of Income Tax versus Rakesh Mahajan. The review was sought on grounds specified in the memos of the review petitions. The respondent's counsel did not object to the delay in filing but argued that the review petitions were not maintainable. The court, after considering the submissions and the grounds for review, concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for a review under the CPC.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793867 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ranjeet Khanna vs Chiragu Deen, Union of India & others vs Paras Ram, Surjeet Kumar & others vs State of H.P. & others, Onkar Singh vs Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd. & another, State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs Sh. Jitender Mahindroo (since deceased) through LRs, State of Himachal Pradesh & another vs Smt. Ramesh & another
• Laws Referred To: Code of Civil Procedure
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUTHIALA; DIWAN NEGI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANAT KAPPOR; ASHISH VERMA
• Keywords: Delay Condoned; Income Tax; Not-maintainable; Review petition
• Section: 114; 47

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP CMP CMP CMPs s s s (M) No. (M) No. (M) No. (M) No. 462 & 493 of 2016 462 & 493 of 2016 462 & 493 of 2016 462 & 493 of 2016 Date of decision Date of decision Date of decision Date of decision: : : : 05.12.2016. 05.12.2016. 05.12.2016. 05.12.2016. CMP CMP CMP CMPs s s s (M) No. 462 (M) No. 462 (M) No. 462 (M) No. 462 & 493 & 493 & 493 & 493 of 2016 of 2016 of 2016 of 2016 Rakesh Mahajan ….Petitioner(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax .…Respondent(s) { {{ { ___________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. . . . The Hon’ble Mr. Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan Tarlok Singh Chauhan Tarlok Singh Chauhan Tarlok Singh Chauhan, , , , Judge Judge Judge Judge. . . . Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________ For the petitioner(s) : M/s Sanat Kappor and Ashish Verma, Advocates. For the respondent(s): Mr. Vijay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate. Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, learned Counsel for the respondent(s) stated at the Bar that he has no objection, if delay in filing both the review petitions is condoned, however, the review petitions are not maintainable. His statement is taken on record. Accordingly, CMP(M)s No. 462 & 493 of 2016 are granted and the delay in filing the said review petitions is condoned. The applications are disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. The Review Petitions are taken on Board. Registry to diarize the same. 3. By the medium of these review petitions, petitioner has sought review of the common judgment and order dated 09.09.2015, made by this Court in ITAs No. 55/2009 & 38 of 2010, titled Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax versus Rakesh Mahajan versus Rakesh Mahajan versus Rakesh Mahajan versus Rakesh Mahajan, on the grounds taken in the memos of the review petitions. 4. It is apt to record herein that in order to seek review, the review petitioner has to satisfy the mandate of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) read with Order 47 CPC, as has been held by this Court in Review Petition No. Review Petition No. Review Petition No. Review Petition No. 56 56 56 56 of 2014, of 2014, of 2014, of 2014, titled as Ranjeet Ranjeet Ranjeet Ranjeet Khanna versus Chiragu Deen Khanna versus Chiragu Deen Khanna versus Chiragu Deen Khanna versus Chiragu Deen and another, and another, and another, and another, decided on 8th August, 2014; Review Petition Review Petition Review Petition Review Petition No. 65 of 2015, No. 65 of 2015, No. 65 of 2015, No. 65 of 2015, titled as Union of India & others versus Union of India & others versus Union of India & others versus Union of India & others versus Paras Ram, Paras Ram, Paras Ram, Paras Ram, decided on 25th June, 2015; Review Petition No. 115 of 2015, Review Petition No. 115 of 2015, Review Petition No. 115 of 2015, Review Petition No. 115 of 2015, titled as Surje Surje Surje Surjeet Kumar and others versus et Kumar and others versus et Kumar and others versus et Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and State of H.P. and State of H.P. and State of H.P. and others, others, others, others, decided on 16th March, 2016; Review Review Review Review Petition No. Petition No. Petition No. Petition No. 20 of 2016, 20 of 2016, 20 of 2016, 20 of 2016, titled as Onkar Singh versus Onkar Singh versus Onkar Singh versus Onkar Singh versus Executive Executive Executive Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd. and another, Engineer, HPSEB Ltd. and another, Engineer, HPSEB Ltd. and another, Engineer, HPSEB Ltd. and another, decided on 12th May, - 3 - 2016; Review Petition No. 54 of 2015, Review Petition No. 54 of 2015, Review Petition No. 54 of 2015, Review Petition No. 54 of 2015, titled as State of State of State of State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Sh. Jitender Himachal Pradesh and others versus Sh. Jitender Himachal Pradesh and others versus Sh. Jitender Himachal Pradesh and others versus Sh. Jitender Kumar Kumar Kumar Kumar Mahindroo (since deceased) through LRs, Mahindroo (since deceased) through LRs, Mahindroo (since deceased) through LRs, Mahindroo (since deceased) through LRs, decided on 12th May, 2016 and Review Petition No. 116 of 2015 Review Petition No. 116 of 2015 Review Petition No. 116 of 2015 Review Petition No. 116 of 2015 titled as T T T The State of Himachal Pradesh and another he State of Himachal Pradesh and another he State of Himachal Pradesh and another he State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Smt. Smt. Smt. Smt. Ramesh and another, Ramesh and another, Ramesh and another, Ramesh and another, decided on 14.06.2016. 5. We have gone through the judgment under review and the grounds taken in the review petitions. The review petitioner has not taken any ground, as required under law. 6. Having said so, no case for review is made out and the review petitions merit to be dismissed. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed alongwith all pending applications. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, if any available. (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice. Chief Justice. Chief Justice. Chief Justice. December 5 December 5 December 5 December 5, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2016 6 6 6 ( ( ( (Tarlok Singh Chauhan Tarlok Singh Chauhan Tarlok Singh Chauhan Tarlok Singh Chauhan) ) ) ) (hemlata) Judge. Judge. Judge. Judge. "