Smt. Ibashisha Rynjah V. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Dept., New Delhi and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Dept., Shillong-793001, Meghalaya and The Income Tax Officer, ITO W-1, O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong-7930001, Meghalaya and The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong and The Superintendent of Police (city), Govt. of Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and The Officer-in-charge cum Investigating Officer, Laitumkhrah Police Station, Shillong, Meghalaya and The Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Shillong, P.B.No.25, Police Bazar, G.S. Road, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793001 and The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Motinagar Branch, Shillong and Mr. Nirmalya Das Gupta, Newline Laitumkhrah, Opposite Laitumkhrah Presbyterian Church, Shillong-793002 and Nitya Paul, Ka Phran Mawrie Complex, Laitumkhrah main road, near Beat House, Shillong-793003

Review Pet/8/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Ibashisha Rynjah, the petitioner, who sought a review of the High Court's judgment concerning her application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The original judgment mistakenly recorded that the application was withdrawn by the respondent No.9 without the applicant's consent. The petitioner, represented by Ms. S. Parueen, argued that the application was actually filed and later withdrawn by respondent No.9 without her permission. The respondents included various government officials and private individuals, with the Income Tax Department being a significant party. The court, upon reviewing the submissions and acknowledging the error, modified its earlier decision to allow the filing of a new application under the specified section, ensuring that any delay would be condoned and the application would be disposed of as per the directions of the original judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820615 (HC-MEGHALAYA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N MOZIKA; K GURUNG; N SYNGKON; J N RYNJAH
• Assessee Lawyers: S PARUEEN
• Keywords: Income Tax; Review; Section 264; Mistake in recording facts
• Section: 264

Judgement Text

"Serial No.03 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Review Pet.No.8/2024 Date of Order: 04.12.2024 Smt. Ibashisha Rynjah ..... Petitioner Vs. 1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Dept., New Delhi. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Dept., Shillong-793001, Meghalaya. 3. The Income Tax Officer, ITO W-1, O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong-7930001, Meghalaya. 4. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong. 5. The Superintendent of Police (city), Govt. of Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong. 6. The Officer-in-charge cum Investigating Officer, Laitumkhrah Police Station, Shillong, Meghalaya. 7. The Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Shillong, P.B.No.25, Police Bazar, G.S. Road, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793001. 8. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Motinagar Branch, Shillong. 9. Mr. Nirmalya Das Gupta, Newline Laitumkhrah, Opposite Laitumkhrah Presbyterian Church, Shillong-793002. 10. Nitya Paul, Ka Phran Mawrie Complex, Laitumkhrah main road, near Beat House, Shillong-793003. ..... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Page 1 of 3 2024:MLHC:1110-DB Appearance: For the Petitioner : Ms. S. Parueen, Adv For the Respondents : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. K. Gurung, Adv Mr. N. Syngkon, GA with Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA i) Whether approved for Yes/No reporting in Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral) This is an application for review of our judgment and order dated 26th November, 2024. Ms. S. Parueen, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents including the Income-tax department have been duly served. Such submission is accepted. It appears that there is a mistake in recording some facts urged by learned counsel, in the said judgment and order. At pages 4 and 5 of that judgment and order, it has been recorded that the applicant had filed an application under Section 264 of Page 2 of 3 2024:MLHC:1110-DB the Income-tax Act, 1961 and that without her consent, it was withdrawn by the respondent No.9. Learned counsel submits that opposite is the case. The fact, as averred in the petition, is that the Section 264 application of her client was filed by the respondent No.9 without her permission and that having realised so, she withdrew it. Considering this mistake and the facts and circumstances of this case, we review our judgment and order dated 26th November, 2024 by modifying it to the extent that the applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh Section 264 application within three weeks from date. That application if filed would be considered by condoning the delay, if any and disposed of in accordance with the directions in the said judgment and order dated 26th November, 2024. This application for review is accordingly disposed of. (W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji) Judge Chief Justice Page 3 of 3 2024:MLHC:1110-DB Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2024.12.04 16:31:51 IST Signature Not Verified "