THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/138/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01006646202221 February 2022Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an order cannot be reviewed based on arguments that could have been advanced when the matter was initially disposed of, emphasizing that a review petition cannot function as an appeal in disguise. The Court found that the learned counsel for the review petitioner was unable to point out any error apparent on the face of the record in respect of the order passed on January 2, 2020. Consequently, the Court concluded that there were no grounds to entertain the review petition. The ratio decidendi is that review is a limited remedy for correcting apparent errors, not for re-arguing a case or introducing new arguments that were available earlier. The operative direction was to reject the review petition.

What were the facts?

The review petitioner, M.B. Ganapathy, sought to review an order dated January 2, 2020, passed by the High Court of Karnataka in ITA No. 862/2018. The original appeal concerned an assessment year not specified in this judgment. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1, Madikeri, was the respondent. The review petition was filed under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for a review of the aforementioned order. The procedural history indicates that the High Court had previously decided ITA No. 862/2018 on January 2, 2020, and this review petition is a subsequent challenge to that decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated January 2, 2020, passed by the High Court in ITA No. 862/2018, warranting a review under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the review petitioner argued that the order dated January 2, 2020, should be reviewed. However, the specific grounds or arguments that could have been advanced at the time of the original disposal were not detailed in this judgment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent Income Tax Officer in response to the review petition. However, the Court's observation implies that the revenue's position, or at least the court's understanding of the case, did not warrant a review.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 114

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46800-DB RP No. 138 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA REVIEW PETITION NO. 138 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1.

M B GANAPATHY MB WINE, AGED 65 YEARS PONNANPET ROAD, GONIKOPPAL POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU,-571213 PAN No. AHOPG164OF …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VANAJA M R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD. NO. 1, TEMPLE ROAD, STUART HILL, MADIKERI, KARNATAKA PIN. 571201. …RESPONDENT

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION BY REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED:02.01.2020 PASSED IN THE APPEAL ITA No.862/2018 ANNEXURE A AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER, ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46800-DB RP No. 138 of 2022

THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, SANJAY GOWDA.J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

It is settled law that an order cannot be reviewed on the basis of arguments that could have been advanced when the matter was disposed off. In other words, a review cannot be an appeal in disguise.

In our view, learned counsel for the review petitioner is unable to point out any error apparent on the face of the record in respect of the order passed on 02.01.2020. We find that there are no grounds to entertain the review petition. Review Petition is, therefore, rejected.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

More judgments on Section 114

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 114 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →