SH. DHARAMCHAND PADAMCHAND JAIN S/O SH. PADAMCHAND JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR II

CRW/112/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02108835201828 May 2019Author: G R MOOLCHANDANI,S. RAVINDRA BHAT2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order rejecting the appeal had a material bearing on the case and its omission to consider the VDI Scheme declaration by the petitioner's wife appeared to be an error on the face of the record. Consequently, the review petitions were allowed, and the appeals were restored to their original numbers. The High Court directed that the income-tax appeals be listed for further hearing. The principle established is that if a material fact, which was declared and accepted under a scheme like the VDI Scheme, is omitted from consideration by the appellate court, it can constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting a review. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The review petitioner, Sh. Dharamchand Padamchand Jain, filed review petitions against an order of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The petitioner contended that the High Court's order, which had rejected his appeal, failed to consider a material aspect. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the articles of jewelry in question were also subject to a valuation declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme (VDI Scheme) by his wife. The petitioner further stated that this VDI Scheme was ultimately allowed and accepted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench in ITA No. 1180/2006 dated 09/04/2014. The High Court acknowledged that this omission appeared to be an error on the face of the record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court's order rejecting the appeal erred by failing to consider the material aspect that the articles of jewelry were also subject to a valuation declaration under the VDI Scheme by the petitioner's wife, which was subsequently allowed by the ITAT Mumbai Bench. Assessee's Contention: The counsel for the review petitioner argued that the High Court's order rejecting the appeal did not deal with the material aspects pointed out during the appeal, specifically that the jewelry was declared under the VDI Scheme by the petitioner's wife, and this scheme was ultimately allowed by the ITAT Mumbai Bench. The petitioner relied on the ITAT Mumbai Bench order dated 09/04/2014 in ITA No. 1180/2006. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 111/2018 Sh. Dharamchand Padamchand Jain S/o Sh. Padamchand Jain ----Petitioner Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur Ii ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 112/2018 Sh. Dharamchand Padamchand Jain S/o Sh. Padamchand Jain ----Petitioner Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur Ii ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anant Kasliwal Ms. Charu Pareek Mr. Kartikeya Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat for Mr. R.B. Mathur HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI

Order 28/05/2019 Misc.Application Nos.2429/2018 & 2430/2018:-

For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. The delay in filing the review petitions is condoned. D.B. Civil Review Petition Nos.111/2018 & 112/2018:-

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is pointed out by the counsel for the review- petitioner that the order rejecting the appeal (which extracted much parts of the ITAT’s order and quoted them with approval) did

(2 of 2) [CRW-111/2018] not deal with the material aspects which were pointed out during the course of the appeal i.e. that the articles of jewelry were also the subject-matter of valuation declaration under the VDI Scheme by the petitioner’s wife. According to the averments made in the appeal – and also reiterated in the review petition, the VDI Scheme was ultimately allowed and accepted by virtue of orders of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT dated 09/04/2014 (in ITA No.1180/2006).

This court is of the opinion that the said order has a material bearing and its omission appears to be an error on the face of the record.

For the above reasons, the review petitions are allowed and the appeals are restored to their original numbers.

The income-tax appeals be listed on 06/08/2019. (G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ Anil Goyal-TN/13-14

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →