Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 vs. Mukesh Sharma

PDF · subscribers
RP/638/2020HC Madhya Pradesh16 September 2022Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjay Lal
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the delay of 75 days in filing the review petition was condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court found that an error apparent on the face of the record had indeed occurred in the order dated 27.11.2019. This error stemmed from the Revenue's mistaken belief that the tax effect was below Rs. 1 Crore, which led to the withdrawal of ITA No.17/2015. Upon reviewing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.01.2013, it was evident that the tax effect exceeded Rs. 1 Crore. Consequently, the provisions of Circular No.17/2019 were inapplicable. The Court allowed the review petition, setting aside the order of withdrawal and restoring ITA No.17/2015 to its original number for listing and admission.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhopal, filed a review petition seeking to recall an order dated 27.11.2019 passed in ITA No.17/2015. The Revenue had previously withdrawn this appeal based on an incorrect assumption that the tax effect was below Rs. 1,00,00,000. The review petition was filed with a delay of 75 days, for which an application for condonation of delay was made. The High Court considered the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.01.2013, which indicated that the actual tax effect was significantly higher than Rs. 1 Crore.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 75 days in filing the review petition should be condoned, considering the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (Question of law) 2. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 27.11.2019, which led to the withdrawal of ITA No.17/2015 based on an incorrect tax effect assessment. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the withdrawal of ITA No.17/2015 was based on a wrong assumption that the tax effect was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000. They relied on Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CBDT, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. However, the actual tax effect, as per the CIT(A)'s order dated 30.01.2013, was much higher, rendering the circular inapplicable to the original appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

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 SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 REVIEW PETITION No. 638 of 2020 BETWEEN:- DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 (1), BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL - ADVOCATE) AND MUKESH SHARMA R/O B-99, RAJYA VIDHI COLONY, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (NONE) This petition coming on for consideration of I.A. No.3045/2021-an application for condonation of delay this day, JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU passed the following:

ORDER I.A. No.3045/2021, an application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Delay of 75 days in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. This petition has been filed by the Revenue-Income Tax Department seeking review of the order dated 27.11.2019 passed in I.T.A. No.17/2015 whereby the said I.T.A. had been withdrawn by the Revenue on the wrong 1 (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE (VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE assumption that the tax effect involved is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). Learned counsel for the Revenue has taken us to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.01.2013, a perusal of which reveals that the tax effect appears to be much more than Rs. One Crore and therefore, the provisions of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section), New Delhi were inapplicable to the ITA. In view of above, an error apparent on the face of the record appears to have crept in the order under review. Consequently, this Court exercising its review jurisdiction allows this review petition and restores I.T.A. No.17/2015 to its original number to be listed for admission. Let a copy of this order be placed along with the record of I.T.A. No.17/2015. @shish

2

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →