M/S UNIVEB SLEEPERS PVT. LTD. DURG V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHILAI

REVP/59/2011

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. seeking a review of an earlier judgment passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in a tax dispute with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 Bhilai. The applicant argued that certain relevant judgments were not considered in the initial judgment, which they claimed led to an error on a substantial point of law. The court, however, found that the judgments cited by the applicant were not relevant to the issues at hand and that the applicant had not pointed out any manifest error or provided new facts that could not have been produced earlier. The court dismissed the review petition, stating that it was essentially an attempt to reargue the case under the guise of a review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751340 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: K.P. Varghese v. I.T.O., S.R. Chavan v. Cement Corporation of India, Kanhaiya Lal Mehar v. High Court of Chhattisgarh, Smt. Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudhary, Lily Thomas v. Union of India, Ajit v. State of Orissa, Government of T.N. v. M. Ananchu Asari, Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules 2007, Code of Civil Procedure
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Error apparent; Income Tax; Review petition
• Section: 90; 47; 1

Judgement Text

"^'j^j' J-^-^' ^^--J''~^f~'^i'\"~»r'J--^'-J''^-J-:-r~J~-^'-J'-J'-f^ Division Bendl IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (€.6.) REVIEWPETCTTON No. 5-9 /2011 REVIEW PETCTION UNDER RUL6 90 OF THE HIGH CqyRTlOF CHHATTISGARH RULES 2007, READ WITH ORbER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE COD6 OF CIVIL PROC6DURE. APPLICANT >w- i^^'^^s^ ^^^^^^'^^ presen^^^^...^- •^^...—•\"^\"<-r^-^ RESPONDENT ^M/S Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. MI611, Padnabhpur Durg (C.^.) V6RSUS -Oeputy Commissioner of Income TQX Circte 1 Bhilai (C.G.) ^',.- ^:.:. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 59 of2011 M/s. Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 Bhilai. REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE 90 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES 2007, READ WJTH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OFCIVIL PROCEDURE. APPLICANT RESPONDENTS Coram : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Rangnath Chandrakar, JJ. Present: None for the applicant. None for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on 08th day ofSeptember, 2011) Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J I.A. No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay. SufTicient cause has been shown. Delay is condoned. 1. The applicant seeks review ofthe order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed in Tax Case No. 105/2010 [Depiity Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) v. M/s. Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. M1G-2, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)}, on the following grounds: \"(A) Because the error apparent on the face of the record in its judgments are error on substantial point of law, though the assesse/petitioner filed written submission relied by the relevantjudgments in response to appeal of the department, on account of some mistake same is not reflect and appears in the impugned judgment, hence not been considered before delivering the judgment. (B) Because it is settled law that ifthe plaint interpretation gives absurd result, then external aid can be taken to interpret the provisions of law, explained to section 73 was enacted as result of recommendation of law commission. Wanchoo committee and as per settled judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court oflndia it can be referred for interpretation, more over the C.B.D.T. circular also makes it clear that the provisions was to be used against the group ofcompanies to check the evasion oftax and not is cases of all the companies where thee is no evasion of tax. As the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the matter of K.P.Varghese v. I.T.O. reported in (1981) 131ITR597.\" 2. The submission in the review petition that the judgment relied by the respondent (in Tax Case No. 105/2010) in his written submission, has not been considered, is not correct. The judgments which were relevant for .adjudication of the issue were considered and as such, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. There is no gainsaying that it is for the Court to consider the relevant judgments and not all the judgments, which according to the Court, is not relevant. However, in the facts of the case, indisputably, learned counsel appearing for the applicant had not relied on any judgment during the course of the argument. According to him, the same were supplied alongwith the written submission. Thus, the averment in the review petition that the judgments relied on by the counsel were not cited in the judgment, thus, there is an en