Surendra Pal Singh Sahni V. Union Of India, Through Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Rajasthan and Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Range, Udaipur and Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota and ACIT, Central Circle, Revenue Building, CAD Circle, Kota

WRW/84/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, who challenged the initiation of assessment proceedings and alleged denial of material documents by various income tax authorities. Initially, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage by the Division Bench, which led to the filing of a review petition. The petitioner argued that the dismissal was premature as it occurred before the service of notice to the respondents, despite the court's initial finding that an arguable case was presented. The respondents contended that the dismissal was justified on merits. The court, referencing decisions from the Supreme Court, found in favor of the petitioner, leading to the recall of the earlier order and restoration of the appeal for a decision on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697344 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Himansu Kumar Bose Versus Jyoti Prokash Mitter, Union of India & Anr. Versus S.P. Anand & Ors., Delhi Administration Versus Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: AIR 1964 SC 1636, (1998) 6 SCC 466, (2000) 7 SCC 296
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SIDDHARTH BAPNA
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH SAHNI; RAM SHARMA
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Recall order; Review petition; Denial of material documents

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Review Petition (Writ) No. 84/2022 In D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 810/2021 Surendra Pal Singh Sahni S/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Rubber Factory Road, Rajendra Vila, Kota Junction, Kota (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Rajasthan, Room No. 402, IVth Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-II, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur-302005. 2. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Range, Udaipur, Second Floor, Moomal Tower, 16, Saheli Marg, Udaipur, (Rajasthan). 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota (Rajasthan) 4. ACIT, Central Circle, Revenue Building, CAD Circle, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Advocate with Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment 25/07/2022 Heard on prayer for review and recall of order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Division Bench in the matter of challenge to initiation of proceedings of assessment and alleged denial of material documents. (2 of 3) [WRW-84/2022] Learned counsel for the review petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Himansu Kumar Bose Versus Jyoti Prokash Mitter in AIR 1964 SC 1636, Union of India & Anr. Versus S.P. Anand & Ors. in (1998) 6 SCC 466 and Delhi Administration Versus Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. in (2000) 7 SCC 296, would submit that once the notices were issued requiring the respondents to file reply, meaning thereby that the Court was prima facie satisfied that an arguable case is made out, dismissal of the appeal on the next date without awaiting the service of notice on respondents amounted to recall of notice of admission. He would argue that in such a situation, only after service of notice, if reply was filed or the reply was not filed, the Court could proceed to pass such an order as a consequence. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that irrespective of the objections which have been taken to the dismissal of the appeal before service of notice at the admission stage, it is argued that otherwise also on merits the review petitioner does not have a strong case which was noticed by the Bench and, therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed on merits. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Three decisions, which have been cited before this Court namely Himansu Kumar Bose Versus Jyoti Prokash Mitter (supra), Union of India & Anr. Versus S.P. Anand & Ors. (supra) and Delhi Administration Versus Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. (supra), supports the case of the review petitioner on the submission which has been made by learned counsel for the review-petitioner. On facts, present is a case when the case was heard on admission and the Bench hearing the case having found (3 of 3) [WRW-84/2022] that it was an arguable issue, issued notices in the nature of rule, required the respondents to file reply. Further from the record it is revealed that the notices were not served and they are still awaited. In such a situation, when the case was again listed, in our opinion, the view which has been taken in the aforesaid judgments requires the matter to be considered after appearance of the respondents. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ram Sahu (Dead) through Lrs and Others Versus Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 896, is misconceived in law. The ground, on which the review has been sought, certainly makes out a case for review and recall of the order on the grounds which have been heard particularly when they are supported by as many as three decisions, if not more, on the issue. In the result, the review petition is allowed. Order dated 21.01.2022 is recalled and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 810/2021 is restored to its original number for decision on merits. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /50 "