THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MR CONY LOUIS D SILVA

ITA/258/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01036769201816 July 2018Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no error apparent on the face of the record was made out to justify a review of the order dated July 11, 2018. The Court considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners (Revenue) and perused the material on record. Based on this consideration, the Court concluded that the grounds for review were not met. Therefore, the Review Petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC requires an error apparent on the face of the record, and such an error was not demonstrated by the Revenue in this instance. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the petition.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns a Review Petition filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (the Revenue) seeking to review an order dated July 11, 2018, passed by the High Court of Karnataka in ITA No. 378/2013. The original appeal was filed by the Revenue against M/s. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee). The Review Petition was filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners (Revenue) and perused the material on record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated July 11, 2018, passed by the High Court in ITA No. 378/2013, warranting a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The Revenue argued that an error apparent on the face of the record exists, justifying the review of the previous order. The Assessee's arguments are not recorded in this judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

REVIEW PETITION No.258/2018 IN ITA No.378/2013

BETWEEN :

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK

KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE-11[4], PRESENT ADDRESS

DCIT, CIRCLE-3[1][2], 2ND FLOOR

BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD

6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU-560095.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI ARAVIND.K.V., ADV.)

AND :

M/s. HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PVT. LTD., No.151/1, DORAISARIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560076.

…RESPONDENT

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED

11.07.2018 PASSED IN ITA No.378/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE H ON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material on record, we are of the considered view that no error apparent on the face of the record is made out to review the order as sought for.

Hence, review petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Dvr:

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →