MS LATHA RAMACHANDRA INAMDAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/30/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01013089201323 July 2013Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no merit in the review petition. The court explicitly stated that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it did not see any merit in the review petition. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed. In addition, an interlocutory application (I.A.No.1/2013), which was filed for condoning the delay in filing the review petition, was also dismissed as a consequence of the dismissal of the main petition. The judgment does not elaborate on the specific reasons why the review petition lacked merit, nor does it discuss the merits of the original appeal (ITA No.1405/2006).

What were the facts?

This matter concerns a Review Petition filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (the Revenue) seeking a review of an order dated 3-9-2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in ITA No.1405/2006. The original appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order concerning M/s. Cheslind Textiles Ltd. (the Assessee). The Review Petition was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court heard the learned counsel for both parties on the review petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to review the order dated 3-9-2012 passed in ITA No.1405/2006, as contemplated under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Revenue contended that a review of the previous order was warranted. The Assessee, through its counsel, presented arguments in response to the review petition. The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific grounds for review raised by the Revenue or the precise arguments made by either party beyond stating that the court heard them.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 114

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

REVIEW PETITION No.30 OF 2013 IN ITA No.1405 OF 2006

BETWEEN :

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.R.BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE – 560 001

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BANGALORE – 1, C.R.BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.KAMALADHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S.CHESLIND TEXTILES LTD., NO.40, 100FT. ROAD IV BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 034

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHY, ADVOCATE)

2 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 3-9-2012 PASSED IN ITA No.1405/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

We do not see any merit in the review petition. Hence, petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2013, filed for condoning the delay is also dismissed.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 114

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 114 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →