PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SURENDRA KEDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/161/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01024539202012 February 2021Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the review petition and restored ITA No. 372/2013. The Court considered the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the review petitioners (Revenue). Specifically, the Court was invited to consider an order dated 16.06.2017 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in Review Petition No. 41/2017. In that prior case, under similar circumstances, the review petition was allowed, and the appeals were restored. The present Division Bench found no reason to deviate from the view adopted by the earlier Division Bench. Therefore, following the precedent set in RP No. 41/2017, the Court allowed the current review petition and restored ITA No. 372/2013 to the file for independent hearing. No specific issues from the original appeal were decided on merits in this review proceeding.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns a Review Petition (RP) No. 161 of 2020 filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore, and the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi (the Revenue). The petition seeks to review the judgment dated 07.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 372/2013. The original appeal was filed by the Revenue against M/s Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. The Revenue's review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC, praying to review the earlier judgment and restore the appeal for independent hearing. The High Court heard both parties on the admission of the review petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should review its judgment dated 07.11.2019 in ITA No. 372/2013 and restore the appeal for a fresh hearing, based on the grounds presented by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that the review petition should be allowed. To support their argument, the learned counsel for the Revenue invited the Court's attention to a previous order dated 16.06.2017 passed by a Division Bench of the same Court in Review Petition No. 41/2017. In that prior case, under similar circumstances, a review petition was allowed, and ITA Nos. 1-2/2014 were restored. The Revenue implicitly argued that the present case mirrors the circumstances of the earlier review petition. The Respondent (M/s Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd.) did not present any arguments against the review petition, as indicated by the judgment's narrative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 114

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

RP No. 161 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REVIEW PETITION NO. 161 OF 2020 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 372/2013 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MANGALORE 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S MANIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION LTD MANIPAL HOUSE MANIPAL-576104 …RESPONDENT (BY MS. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2019 IN ITA NO.372/2013 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT TO BE HEARD INDEPENDENTLY AFRESH.

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

RP No. 161 of 2020 ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the review petitioners invited our attention to the order dated 16.06.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Review Petition No.41/2017 wherein, in similar circumstances, the review petition was allowed and ITA Nos.1-2/2014 were restored. 3. Perused the order dated 16.06.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Review Petition No.41/2017. We see no reason to take a different view than the one adopted by the Division Bench. As such, the review petition is allowed and ITA No.372/2013 is restored.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

More judgments on Section 114

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 114 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →