B.R.AJIT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7683/2016HC KeralaKLHC01055107201601 March 2016Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case for exercising review jurisdiction. The Court noted that the sole ground for the review petition was the information received under the Right to Information Act, which stated that no warrant of authorization under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act had been issued. However, the Income Tax Department produced the actual warrant of authorization, duly acknowledged by the police, which contradicted the information provided to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found the petitioner's premise for review to be incorrect and dismissed the Review Petition. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Review Petition.

What were the facts?

The Review Petitioner, Muhammed C K, filed a Review Petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an earlier order in WP(C) No. 9269 of 2024. The sole ground for review was information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act from the Nilambur Police Station, stating that no requisition or warrant of authorization under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been issued. The Income Tax Department, represented by its Standing Counsel, filed a memo producing the warrant of authorization issued under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act, which was acknowledged by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur, on June 8, 2022. This document contradicted the information provided to the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its review jurisdiction based on the information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, which indicated no warrant of authorization under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act was issued. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the information received under the RTI Act, suggesting no Section 132A authorization was issued, formed the basis for the review. The petitioner relied on this information as the sole ground for seeking a review of the earlier order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted a warrant of authorization under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act, acknowledged by the police, which directly refuted the petitioner's claim. The revenue presented this document to demonstrate that the premise of the review petition was factually incorrect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 RP NO. 482 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.9269 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: MUHAMMED C K AGED 39 YEARS CHETTUKKUZHIYIL, KARANTHUR, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673571 BY ADVS. BEJOY JOSEPH P.J. P.RAGHUNATHAN BONNY BENNY THASLEENA.K.K. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 2 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD , KOCHI, PIN - 682018 BY ADVS. NAVANEETH.N.NATH SUSIE B VARGHESE(K/1300/2019) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RP NO. 482 OF 2024 2 ORDER

This Review Petition has been filed on the strength of the information received by the Review Petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act from the Nilambur Police Station that no requisition/warrant of authorization under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been issued.

2.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department has filed a memo producing therewith the warrant of authorisation issued under Sub- Section (1) of Section 132A of the Income Tax Act which is seen acknowledged by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur on 08.06.2022. 3. In the light of the above, it appears that the information provided to the Review Petitioner under the Right to Information Act from the Nilambur police station is incorrect. Since this is the only ground raised in the review petition, I am of the view that the petitioner has

RP NO. 482 OF 2024 3 not made out any case for exercise of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Review Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE ajt

RP NO. 482 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX OF RP 482/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP [C] NO. 9269/2024 DATED 11.03.2024 Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER RTI ACT DATED 12.03.2024 BEFORE THE SHO, NILAMBUR Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER RTI ACT DATED 12.03.2024 BEFORE THE SHO, NILAMBUR Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DT. 22.03.2024 FROM SHO, NILAMBUR PS Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DT. 22.03.2024 FROM SHO, NILAMBUR PS

More judgments on Section 132A

All 569 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →