DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. JAI NARAYAN AGARWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/31/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02023248202323 September 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner's advocate submitted that the petitioner had decided not to pursue the review petition and requested to withdraw it. A memo to this effect was filed. The Court ordered that the memo be kept on record and granted leave for withdrawal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were imposed. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the original appeal or the grounds for review, as the review petition itself was withdrawn by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Garden City Education Trust, filed a Review Petition (RP No. 31 of 2023) before the High Court of Karnataka. This petition sought to review the judgment dated October 28, 2022, passed in ITA No. 66 of 2017. The original appeal concerned assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99. The respondent in the review petition was the Deputy Director of Income-Tax (Exemption), Circle 17(1), Bengaluru. The review petition was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the Review Petition filed by M/s. Garden City Education Trust should be allowed. The petitioner, through its advocate, submitted that it had decided not to pursue the review petition and prayed for its withdrawal. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent (Revenue) regarding the merits of the review petition, as the petitioner sought to withdraw it. The core question was whether the Court should permit the withdrawal of the review petition and dispose of the matter accordingly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 114

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

RP No. 31 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REVIEW PETITION NO. 31 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S. GARDEN CITY EDUCATION TRUST NO. 628/C, 11TH CROSS PRESENTLY AT GCC HOUSE 340, 5TH MAIN INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE BENGALURU - 560 038. RERPESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT - FINANCE MR. NAINAN P. OOMMEN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, SON OF LATE MR. P.N. OOMMEN …PETITIONER (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND:

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (EXEM) CIRCLE 17 (1) 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

RP No. 31 of 2023

THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 28TH OCTOBER 2022 PASSED IN ITA NO.66 OF 2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 TO 1998-99.

THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

Shri.S.Parthasarathi, learned advocate for petitioner submits that the petitioner has decided not to pursue the review petition and prayed to withdraw the same. A memo of even date is filed to the said effect. 2. Memo be kept in record. Leave granted. Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 114

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 114 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →