VIDYA SHANKAR JAISWAL V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

REVP/101/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Pratappur, the petitioner, seeking a review of an order dated 12.04.2024 passed in TAXC No. 86/2024 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur. The petitioner argued that the notice and order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act were not properly served, and the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the merits. The respondent supported the original order. The High Court of Chhattisgarh, after hearing both parties, dismissed the review petition, stating that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and reiterating the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 672347 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, Sasi v. Aravindakshan Nair and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAO; MANOJ KUMAR SINHA
• Keywords: Delay; E-Filing Portal; Income tax appellate tribunal; Real-time alert; Review petition; Substantial question of law
• Section: 250; 260A

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 101 of 2024  Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Pratappur. ---- Petitioner Versus  The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumrani on behalf of Mr. Amit Choudhari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28 .06.2024 1. Heard Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ajay Kumrani holding brief of Mr. Amit Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking review of the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in TAXC No. 86/2024 and thereby prays for remanding the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur for consideration of the application in light of provisions of Income Tax Act/ Rules. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice and order 2 under section 250 of the Act appears to have been dropped on the e- filing portal of the petitioner without any real time alert and were not served as per above provisions. It is held in para-1 and para-8 of the order seeking review that counsel for Respondent has been heard, which is contrary to law, for as per settled legal position issuance of prior notice without framing any substantial question of law is not contemplated in section 260A of the Act far less hearing the Respondent. As per sub-section (4) of section 260A of the Act. Hon'ble Division Bench has been pleased to also deliberate upon the issue on merits while the learned Appellate Tribunal declined to decide on merits and dismissed the appeal only on the grounds of delay. Hon'ble Division Bench ought to have considered the fact that learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the presumption that the delay was due to lackadaisical conduct of the petitioner while it is settled legal position that there cannot be any presumption about delay. As such the review petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would support the order under review. 5. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order under review. 6. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (pl. See Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. 3 Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692. 7. The grounds raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Ruchi "