MUKESH MODI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and ANR.

WRW/140/2017

AI Insights

The case involves multiple review petitions filed by Sambhav Energy Limited, Prakash Beverages, Krishna Dairy Product, and others against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitions challenged the invocation of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer, which was used to re-assess the income of the petitioners for certain assessment years. The petitioners argued that the Assessing Officer did not have fresh material to justify the re-assessment. However, the court upheld the re-assessment, noting that the Assessing Officer had discovered certain documents that had escaped consideration, leading to an escape of income chargeable to tax.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 732683 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRAKUL KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT SHARIN
• Keywords: Assessment; Escape of income; Income Tax; Limitation; Review petition
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Writ Review No. 135 / 2017 SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5, DAMODARAN STREET, KELLYS, CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU)- 600010 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR VIRENDRA MODI. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Writ Review No. 129 / 2017 SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5, DAMODARAN STREET, KELLYS, CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU)- 600010 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR VIRENDRA MODI. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 130 / 2017 PRAKASH BEVERAGES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KRISHNA NAGAR, PADEEB, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. DAKSHA JAIN W/O SH. VIRENDRA KU. MODI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 131 / 2017 SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5, (2 of 6) [WRW-135/2017] DAMODARAN STREET, KELLYS, CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU)- 600010 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR VIRENDRA MODI. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 132 / 2017 KRISHNA DAIRY PRODUCT, KRISHNA NAGAR, PADEEB, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. DAKSHA JAIN W/O SH. VIRENDRA KU. MODI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 133 / 2017 DAKSHA KUMARI JAIN W/O SHRI VIRENDRA MODI, Aged About 48 Years, RESIDENT OF KUTUMB ADARSH NAGAR, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 134 / 2017 PRAKASH BEVERAGES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KRISHNA NAGAR, PADEEB, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. DAKSHA JAIN W/O SH. VIRENDRA KU. MODI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS (3 of 6) [WRW-135/2017] ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 136 / 2017 NAKODA LAND DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NH-14, NEHRU NAGAR, SIROHI THROUGH ITS PARTNER BHARAT DAS S/O MANDAS JA VAISHNAV AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 137 / 2017 NAKODA LAND DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NH-14, NEHRU NAGAR, SIROHI THROUGH ITS PARTNER BHARAT DAS S/O MANDAS JI VAISHNAV AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 138 / 2017 NAKODA LAND DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NH-14, NEHRU NAGAR, SIROHI THROUGH ITS PARTNER VIRENDRA MODI ----Petitioner Versus (4 of 6) [WRW-135/2017] 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 139 / 2017 PRAKASH BEVERAGES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KRISHNA NAGAR, PADEEB, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. DAKSHA JAIN W/O SH. VIRENDRA KU. MODI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 140 / 2017 MUKESH MODI S/O PRAKASH RAJ MODI, Aged About 57 Years, R/O ADARSH NAGAR, SIROHI-307001, RAJASTHAN. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 141 / 2017 BHARAT DAS VAISHVAV S/O SH. MANDAS VAISHNAV, Aged About 51 Years, R/O ADARSH NAGAR LINK ROAD, SIROHI (RAJASTHAN) ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. (5 of 6) [WRW-135/2017] 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Sharin For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 04/08/2017 These review petitions are barred by limitation from 8 days. Ignoring the same, we have looked into merits of the cases. As per the review petitioners the Court, while dismissing the Income Tax Appeals under the order dated 11.4.2017, erred while arriving at the conclusion that the Assessing Officer, though was not having fresh material for the purpose of formation to believe that the income of any particular assessment year has escaped assessment, but with all bonafides he noticed that certain documents escaped consideration and that resulted into escape of income chargeable to tax. It is asserted that on the count aforesaid the authority under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) could have not been invoked. Before looking into merits, we would like to state that the authority to review an order can be exercised by the Court (6 of 6) [WRW-135/2017] only on having eventualities as prescribed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In the cases in hand the submission advanced to review the order pertains to merits of the case and not relating to the eventualities necessary to review a decision earlier taken. While dismissing the petitions, we would like to state that in the cases in hand, looking to the peculiar facts the Court held that the Assessing Officer despite having no fresh material rightly invoked the powers under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on noticing a serious error occurred while making regular assessment. The Court also noticed that the error of escaping certain documents from consideration was bonafide and that warranted to invoke the powers under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The view taken by the Court is conscious and as such the petitioners, if are having any grievance, then the appropriate course is to avail the appropriate remedy but not the review jurisdictions. The applications seeking review of the order dated 11.4.2017 hence are dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR) J. (GOVIND MATHUR) J. MathuriaKK/PS Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) "