Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax I vs. Jabalpur Development Authority

PDF · subscribers
RP/1711/2025HC 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 presented in the application supported by an affidavit. The Court then considered the prayer for restoration of ITA No. 181/2024. The Revenue had submitted that the actual tax effect of the appeal was Rs. 2,14,24,975/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2,19,91,394/- for AY 2012-13, which was significantly higher than the Rs. 2.0 Crores threshold that led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court noted that the dismissal order dated January 24, 2025, had granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application if the cause of action survived. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the corrected tax effect and the liberty granted, the High Court allowed the review petition. The order dated January 24, 2025, was set aside, and ITA No. 181/2024 was restored to its original number. The ratio decidendi is that where an appeal is dismissed for low tax effect due to an inadvertent error in the appeal memo, and the actual tax effect exceeds the threshold, and liberty was granted to approach the court, the appeal should be restored.

What were the facts?

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed a review petition seeking restoration of ITA No. 181/2024, which was dismissed on January 24, 2025, due to the tax effect of the appeal being below Rs. 2.0 Crores. 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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 145(3) by estimating net profit at 18% of total turnover, amounting to Rs. 6,45,78,848/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 5,83,29,941/- for AY 2012-13. Further additions were made by treating interest income declared as business income as income from other sources, totaling Rs. 47,57,645/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 1,28,39,619/- for AY 2012-13. The Revenue contended that the actual tax effect was Rs. 2,14,24,975/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2,19,91,394/- for AY 2012-13, with the lower figure in the appeal memo being an inadvertent error. The High Court had granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 204 days in filing the review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, for restoration of ITA No. 181/2024, should be condoned? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the order dated January 24, 2025, dismissing ITA No. 181/2024 on the ground of tax effect below Rs. 2.0 Crores should be set aside and the appeal restored to its original number, considering the actual tax effect and the liberty granted by the court? Assessee's Contention (Implicitly, as they are the respondent and the review petition is by the Revenue): The assessee's engagement in providing residential houses at affordable prices is mentioned. No specific arguments are recorded for the assessee in this judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the delay of 204 days in filing the review petition was due to sufficient reasons mentioned in the application and supported by an affidavit. They further contended that the tax effect involved was Rs. 2,14,24,975/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2,19,91,394/- for AY 2012-13, which exceeded the threshold, and the lower figure in the memo of appeal was an inadvertent mistake. They relied on the liberty granted by the court to file an application for restoration.

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. 1711 of 2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I Versus JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appearance: Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta - Junior Standing counsel with Shri Srajan Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Oswal - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Heard on I.A. No. 23604/2025, 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. 23604/2025 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-1711-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2059 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for restoration of I.T.A. No. 181/2024, 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, 1961for 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. 181/2024, 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-1711-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2059 (VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE prays for setting aside impugned order dated 24.01.2025 passed in ITA No. 181/2024 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. 181/2024 be restored to its original number. With the aforesaid, review petition allowed and stands disposed of. skt

3 RP-1711-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2059

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →