SHRI SANT LAL AND OTHERS V. THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OTHERS

RA-CW/411/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a review petition filed by the applicants against a judgment previously delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The original judgment partially allowed a writ petition, and the review sought to address grievances that the counsel for the applicants was not adequately heard and was not confronted with certain judicial precedents during the original proceedings. The court examined the principles governing the scope of review, referencing several Supreme Court decisions, and concluded that the review did not meet the criteria for correcting any apparent errors in the original judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748534 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Shelly Mehta vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ludhiana and another, Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal vs State Tax Officer (1) and another, Sajjan Singh and others vs State of Rajasthan, Union of India vs Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others, M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Limited vs Lt. Governor of Delhi, Parson Devi and others vs Sumitri Devi and others, Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs Assam State Electricity Board and others, Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through legal representatives and others vs Vinod Kumar Rawat and others
• Laws Referred To: ITA No. 21 of 2012, Section 234B of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURI NEO RAMPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI; IQBAL ROSHAN
• Keywords: Income tax settlement; Review petition; Confrontation with Provisions; Adjustment against Advance Tax
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

"RA-CW IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Shri Sant Lal and others The Income Tax Settlement Commission and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. judgment passed allowed in part. The order was pronounced in the open Court and contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded. In the judgment, we have itself recorded that counsel for the appl complaining that he was not having been heard at length. 2. this review petition wherein he has again made certain allegations of having not been confronted to the provisio was stated that he had not been confronted with the judgment in ITA No. 21 of 2012- Shelly Mehta vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ludhiana and another course of arguments to distinguish the judgment of wherein this Court had laid down certain principles and submitted that in the CW-411-2024 in CWP No. 6288 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Pronouncement : Shri Sant Lal and others Versus The Income Tax Settlement Commission CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. S. K. Mukhi, Advocate and Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate, for Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel for the non applicants/ respondents. (Through Video conferencing) *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. The review petition has been preferred seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court on 02.09.2024 whereby the writ petition was allowed in part. The order was pronounced in the open Court and contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded. In the judgment, we have itself recorded that counsel for the appl complaining that he was not having been heard at length. Learned counsel for the applicants/ petitioners has filed this review petition wherein he has again made certain allegations of having not been confronted to the provisions which were noticed by the Court. It was stated that he had not been confronted with the judgment in ITA No. 21 Shelly Mehta vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ludhiana and another decided on 30.08.2024. He has attempted during the ourse of arguments to distinguish the judgment of wherein this Court had laid down certain principles and submitted that in the 2024 in CWP No. 6288 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CW-411-2024 (O&M) in CWP No. 6288 of 2001 Reserved on : 18.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2024 … Applicants/ Petitioners …Non-applicants/ Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. S. K. Mukhi, Advocate and Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate, for the applicants/ petitioners. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel for the non- applicants/ respondents. (Through Video conferencing) The review petition has been preferred seeking review of the by this Court on 02.09.2024 whereby the writ petition was allowed in part. The order was pronounced in the open Court and contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded. In the judgment, we have itself recorded that counsel for the applicants/ petitioners was complaining that he was not having been heard at length. Learned counsel for the applicants/ petitioners has filed this review petition wherein he has again made certain allegations of having ns which were noticed by the Court. It was stated that he had not been confronted with the judgment in ITA No. 21 Shelly Mehta vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, decided on 30.08.2024. He has attempted during the ourse of arguments to distinguish the judgment of Shelly Mehta (supra) wherein this Court had laid down certain principles and submitted that in the 2024 (O&M) in CWP No. 6288 of 2001 .10.2024 applicants/ Respondents The review petition has been preferred seeking review of the by this Court on 02.09.2024 whereby the writ petition was allowed in part. The order was pronounced in the open Court and contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded. In the judgment, we icants/ petitioners was Learned counsel for the applicants/ petitioners has filed this review petition wherein he has again made certain allegations of having ns which were noticed by the Court. It was stated that he had not been confronted with the judgment in ITA No. 21 Shelly Mehta vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, decided on 30.08.2024. He has attempted during the (supra) wherein this Court had laid down certain principles and submitted that in the VARINDER SINGH 2024.10.22 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment RA-CW-411-2024 in CWP No. 6288 of 2001 -2- facts of the present case, the amount ought to have been adjusted against the advance tax. The relevant para from Shelly Mehta (supra) is extracted below:- “17. In the wake of above discussion and findings, we are of the considered opinion that amount seized from the possession of Sarup Chand could not be treated as cash belonging to appellants from the date of seizure and it could not be adjusted on the said date against their tax liability. The Revenue has correctly adjusted seized cash from the date of framing of assessment and charged interest under Section 234B on delayed payment of advance tax.” 3. The scope of review has recently been considered by the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal vs State Tax Officer (1) and another 2024 (2) SCC 362; 2023 INSC 963. The Apex Court has considered the law as has been held in Sajjan Singh and others vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845; Union of India vs Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others (2019) 18 SCC 586; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Limited vs Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167; Parsion Devi and others vs Sumitri Devi and others (1997) 8 SCC 715; Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs Assam State Electricity Board and others (2020) 2 SCC 677; and Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through legal representatives and others vs Vinod Kumar Rawat and others (2021) 13 SCC 1 and observed as under:- “16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: - (1) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. VARINDER SINGH 2024.10.22 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment RA-CW-411-2024 in CWP No. 6288 of 2001 -3- (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be \"reheard and corrected.\" (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be \"an appeal in disguise.\" (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 4. We, therefore, do not find any of the aforesaid situations arising in the present case so as to review our earlier order. It is now well settled that a party is not entitled to seek review merely for the purpose of re- hearing and fresh decision of the case. 5. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE 22.10.2024 (SANJAY VASHISHT) vs JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VARINDER SINGH 2024.10.22 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment "