VIJAY CHANNABASAV SUTTATTI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/4054/2024HC BombayHCBM01005014202426 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the application filed by the petitioner before the ITAT under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was in effect seeking a review of the ITAT's earlier order dated 9th September 2022. The Court found no error in the ITAT's decision to reject this application. The reasoning was that Section 254(2) is meant for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record, not for re-arguing or reviewing the merits of the original decision. Therefore, the ITAT was correct in not entertaining an application that sought to review its previous order. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the ITAT's order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Channabasav Suttatti, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 22nd August 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order had rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's application to the ITAT was essentially seeking a review of a previous order passed by the ITAT on 9th September 2022. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle and another.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which sought to review the ITAT's earlier order dated 9th September 2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the ITAT's order dated 22nd August 2023, rejecting their application, was erroneous. The petitioner sought to have the ITAT's prior order reviewed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the High Court's observation implies that the revenue's position, or at least the ITAT's reasoning which the High Court agreed with, was that the application under Section 254(2) was not maintainable as it was in effect a review of the original order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/1 412-aswp-4054-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4054 OF 2024 Vijay Channabasav Suttatti …Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle And Anr. …Respondents Mr. Devendra Jain, i/by Ms. Radha Halbe, for Petitioner. Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Respondent No.1. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 26th March, 2024 PC:- 1. Petitioner is impugning an order dated 22nd August 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) rejecting Petitioner’s application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 2. We have considered the impugned order as well as the application filed and we find no error in the order passed by the ITAT. We agree with the ITAT that application itself is in effect seeking a review of the ITAT’s order passed on 9th September 2022. 3. Therefore, Petition dismissed. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shivgan SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.03.27 19:58:53 +0530

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →