Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-A vs. Jabalpur Development Authority

PDF · subscribers
RP/1712/2025HC Madhya Pradesh09 January 2026Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA3 pages
For Petitioner: Siddharth Sharma[P-1]
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay of 204 days in filing the review petition, finding sufficient grounds in the application supported by an affidavit. The Court allowed the review petition and set aside the order dated January 24, 2025, which had dismissed Income Tax Appeal No. 182/2024. Consequently, the appeal was restored to its original number. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was inadvertently misstated in the appeal memo, and the actual tax effect for the assessment years in question exceeded the threshold of Rs. 2.0 Crores. The Court also noted that liberty was granted to file an application if the cause of action survived. The operative direction was to restore ITA No. 182/2024 to its original number. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed a review petition seeking restoration of Income Tax Appeal No. 182/2024, which was dismissed on January 24, 2025, due to the tax effect of the appeal being below Rs. 2.0 Crores. The Revenue contended that the tax effect was inadvertently misstated in the appeal memo. The assessee, Jabalpur Development Authority, is engaged in providing affordable residential housing. The assessment for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13 was reopened under Section 148, and additions were made under Section 147/143(3). These additions included an estimated net profit of 18% of total turnover/receipts and treating interest income declared as business income as income from other sources. The Revenue claimed the actual tax effect for AY 2011-12 was Rs. 2,14,24,975/- and for AY 2012-13 was Rs. 2,19,91,394/-, exceeding the threshold.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 204 days in filing the review petition should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the Revenue in its application under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Income Tax Appeal No. 182/2024, dismissed for being below the tax effect threshold, should be restored to its original number, given the alleged inadvertent misstatement of the tax effect in the appeal memo. Assessee's Arguments: The Revenue argued that the tax effect was wrongly mentioned in the memo of appeal and that the actual tax effect for AY 2011-12 was Rs. 2,14,24,975/- and for AY 2012-13 was Rs. 2,19,91,394/-, which exceeds Rs. 2.0 Crores. They also submitted that liberty was granted to file an application if the cause of action survived. The Revenue relied on the provisions of Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee regarding the restoration of the appeal. However, the assessee's counsel was present.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A(2A),Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA ON THE 9th OF JANUARY, 2026 REVIEW PETITION No. 1712 of 2025 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-A Versus JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appearance: Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta - Junior Standing counsel with Shri Srajan Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Oswal - learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Heard on I.A. No. 23603/2025, which is an application filed under Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the present petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by the affidavit of petitioner, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No. 23603/2025 is allowed and delay of 204 days in filing the present petition is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. Present review petition has been filed by petitioner under Order 47 1 RP-1712-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2169 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for restoration of I.T.A. No. 182/2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2025 on account that tax effect of appeal was below Rs.2.0 Crores. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessee is engaged in providing residential houses to public at reasonable and affordable price. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13. In these cases, assessment u/s 147/143(3) was completed on 16.03.2016 and following additions were made by the AO- a) Addition by applying the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961, estimating net profit @ 18% of total turnover/receipts- S.No. A.Y. Addition (In Rs.) 1. 2011-12 6,45,78,848/- 2. 2012-13 5,83,29,941/- b) Addition made by treating interest income as other source income which was declared as business income by the assessee- S.No. A.Y. Addition (In Rs.) 1. 2011-12 47,57,645/- 2. 2012-13 1,28,39,619/- It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that tax effect involved is Rs.2,14,24,975/- for A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 2,19,91,394/- for A.Y. 2012-13, however, due to inadvertence, it is wrongly mentioned in the memo of appeal as Rs.1,31,75,245/-. It is further submitted that at the time of dismissal of I.T.A. No. 182/2024, vide order dated 24.01.2025, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file application in case cause of actions survives as per law. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner 2 RP-1712-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2169 (VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE prays for setting aside impugned order dated 24.01.2025 passed in ITA No. 182/2024 and restoration of same on its original number. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed and by setting aside order dated 24.01.2025, I.T.A. No. 182/2024 be restored to its original number. With the aforesaid, review petition allowed and stands disposed of. skt

3 RP-1712-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2169

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →