SHRI KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA ANR V. ADDI DIRECTOR INCOME TAX ORS

WRW/113/2017

AI Insights

The case involves a review petition filed by Shri Kamal Mohan Gupta and Shri Chander Prakash Soni against the order of the High Court of Rajasthan, which had previously directed the respondents to complete any pending proceedings against the petitioners. The original writ petition, filed in 2014, was initially considered with the assumption that the assessment proceedings were ongoing. However, it was later revealed that the assessment had been completed and an appeal had been filed, which was not considered in the original judgment. The review petition argued that this oversight led to an incorrect application of the law in the original judgment, affecting the relief granted regarding the return of seized jewellery under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750940 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GUNJAN PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER JAIN
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Recall order; Review petition; Seized jewellery; Amended writ petition
• Section: 246A; 132B

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Review Petition No. 113/2017 In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8900/2014 1. Shri Kamal Mohan Gupta, House No. 35, Sardar Singh Nagar, Agra Road, Village & Post Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur. 2. Shri Chander Prakash Soni, F-4, Tulsidas Marg, Brahampyri, Jaipur ----Petitioners/Non-Applicant Versus 1. Additional Director Income Tax, Adit Unit 1(1) AIU, Aaykar Bhavan, Kolkatta. 2. Additional Director of Income Tax, Investigation 1, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 4. Income TA Officer, Ward-7 (3), NCRB, Jaipur ----Respondents/Applicants _____________________________________________________ For Review Petitioners-Respondents: Mr. Sameer Jain. For Non-applicants-Writ Petitioners: Mr. Gunjan Pathak. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Order 27/10/2017 This review petition has been filed seeking review/recall of order dated 23.02.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8900/2014. Learned counsel for the review-petitioners/respondents has argued that the order sought to be reviewed proceeds on the footing that assessment proceedings of the writ petitioners were pending whereas the fact is that assessment order was already passed and the assessee-petitioners had filed an appeal before (2 of 3) [WRW-113/2017] CIT (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Learned counsel argued that this happened because originally writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and reply filed to originally filed writ petition was that the same was premature as the proceedings of assessment were still pending, but subsequently writ petition was amended by the writ petitioners after the assessment order was framed, but this aspect of the matter escaped notice of this Court while deciding the writ petition. It is, therefore, that this Court while concluding the judgment directed the respondents-review petitioners to complete the proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioners with immediate effect, upon the petitioners demonstrating the source of seized assets or otherwise pass order in accordance with law. Learned counsel for ther non-applicant/writ petitioners opposed the review petition and submitted that the fact that whether or not assessment order has been passed would not affect the substantial relief which this court granted while passing the judgment of which review is sought. This Court while passing the judgment directed return of seized jewellery to petitioner No. 1 on application made by petitioner No. 2 under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Be that as it may, there appears to be truth in what has been argued by learned counsel for the review petitioners that judgment was passed on the basis of pleadings of the parties in the originally filed writ petition as the memorandum of amended writ petition was properly not placed in the file. Thus, the judgment was not passed on the basis of amended writ petition (3 of 3) [WRW-113/2017] and reply to amended writ petition, on the assumption that assessment proceedings were pending and the same were yet to be completed whereas the fact is that assessment proceedings were completed and appeal against the assessment order was filed by the writ petitioners. What would be the effect of the assessment order and whether the relief with regard to return of seized jewellery, which was granted will remain unaffected thereby, will have to be considered after keeping that fact in view. However, this constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the order passed by this court deserves to be reviewed and recalled. In view of above, review petition is accordingly allowed. Order dated 23.02.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8900/2014 is recalled and writ petition is revived to be listed before the regular Bench on 06.11.2017. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. Manoj/32 "