THE REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LTD.,PUNA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

RP/336/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Rehabilitation Plantations Limited, which filed review petitions against a common judgment dated 21.2.2012 concerning various Income Tax Appeals. The primary contention was the interpretation and application of Rule 7 A (2) of the Income Tax Rules, which the petitioner argued was applied in a manner that unfairly differentiated between rubber plantations and other plantations like coffee and tea. The court, after hearing the arguments, concluded that the original judges had adequately considered the relevant provisions and that a different interpretation, even if possible, did not constitute a ground for review. The court emphasized that a review is not an opportunity to re-hear an appeal on any issue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699080 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Rules, Limitation Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: P GOPINATH; P THOMAS; K MATHAI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax Appeals; Review petition; Rubber Plantations; Coffee and Tea
• Section: 5; 7A(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTA THIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/2ND ASWINA, 1936 RP.No. 336 of 2014 () ----------------------------- TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/02/2012 IN I.T.A. NO.130/2011. ....... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------------------- REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691 305. BY ADVS.SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-09-2014, ALONG WITH RP. NO. 337 OF 2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. RP.No. 336 of 2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/09/2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP NO.33052/2012. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.336 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.342 of 2014, R.P.No.337 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.341 of 2014, R.P.No.344 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.349 of 2014, R.P.No.345 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.350 of 2014, R.P.No.348 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.354 of 2014 and R.P.No.349 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.353 of 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2014 ORDER Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.These review petitions are coming up with applications seeking condonation of enormous period of delay. They are directed against a common judgment dated 21.2.2012, rendered in different Income Tax Appeals which were bunched up and heard. Though we are not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay, in terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner on the grounds of review sought to be urged as well. We have also heard learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 2.The crux of the arguments is that Rule 7 A (2) of the Income Tax Rules has been understood and applied by carving out an unavailable dichotomy and thereby giving deferential treatment R.P.No.336 & Con. 2 to rubber plantations vis-a-vis coffee and tea. This very argument proceeds on the nature of the contents of paragraph 7 of the common judgment sought to be reviewed. That contains a clear expression of the application of mind of the learned Judges to the relevant provision which was under consideration. The fact of the matter remains that hearing the Income Tax Appeals, learned Judges have come to a particular conclusion. Even if a different interpretation is possible on the relevant statutory provision, we are unable to see that there is any ground to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or other ground for review of judgment. It is trite law that an application for review cannot be treated as one to extend an opportunity of re-hearing of an appeal on any issue. For these reasons, the review petitions fail. In the result, C.M. Applications and review petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG "