M/S. REVENBECK SECURITY INDIA LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/12991/2013HC KeralaKLHC01056188201324 May 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Review Petition. The Court found that the review petition was based on a misunderstanding of the earlier interim order, which had been made absolute. Contrary to the review petitioner's assertion, the Court clarified that it had never held, even prima facie, that the exercise of power under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act was arbitrary. The earlier observation was that the *manner* in which the authorities proceeded under Section 226(3) was unfair to the assessee because the assessee was not given adequate time to respond to notices. The Court found no prejudice to the review petitioner from these observations, which were subsequently made absolute while disposing of the Writ Appeal. Therefore, the Review Petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward I & TPS, Guruvayoor, is the review petitioner. The Kadavalur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. is the first respondent. The review petition arises from an earlier judgment dated 15.11.2023 in Writ Appeal No. 1870 of 2023. The earlier interim order, which was made absolute, dealt with the exercise of power under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. The ITO's review petition contends that the earlier order was based on a misunderstanding of the terms of the interim order and that the Court had not held the exercise of power under Section 226(3) to be arbitrary. The ITO argues that the Court's observations were prejudicial to it.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the earlier judgment of this Court, made absolute, erroneously held that the exercise of power under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act was arbitrary, thereby prejudicing the Income Tax Officer. Assessee's (ITO) Contentions: The review petitioner (ITO) argues that the earlier judgment proceeded on a misunderstanding of the terms of the interim order. It contends that the Court had not held, even prima facie, that the exercise of power under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act was arbitrary. The ITO asserts that the Court's observations that the manner of proceeding under Section 226(3) was unfair to the assessee, as the assessee did not get breathing time to respond, were prejudicial to the review petitioner. The ITO questions how it is prejudiced by these prima facie observations that were made absolute. Revenue's (Kadavaloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.) Contentions: No specific contentions for the revenue are recorded in the provided text of the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

RP NO.492/2025
WA No.1870/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

RP NO.492/2025 IN WA No.1870/2023 1 2025:KER:30292 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 492 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.112023 IN WA NO.1870 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN WA/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I & TPS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, CITY PLAZA, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, PIN - 680101 BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SRI.KEERTHIVAS GIRI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN WA/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

KADAVALOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3821 KADAVALOOR P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680543

STATE BANK OF INDIA PERUMBILAVU BRANCH, TRIVENI PLAZA, PERUMPILAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680519 BY ADVS.SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN,SC SMT.G MINI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RP NO.492/2025 IN WA No.1870/2023 2 2025:KER:30292 O R D E R Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. On going through the averments in the Review Petition, we find that it proceeds on a misunderstanding of the terms of the earlier interim order that were made absolute at the time of disposal of the Writ Appeal. Contrary to what is stated in the grounds in the Review Petition, this Court had never held even prima facie that the exercise of power under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act was arbitrary. All that was said was that the manner in which the authorities proceeded Section 226(3) was unfair to the assessee inasmuch as the assessee did not even get a breathing time to respond to the notices issued to him. We do not see how the review petitioner is prejudiced by the said prima facie observations that were subsequently made absolute while disposing the Writ Appeal. The Review Petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE mns

RP NO.492/2025 IN WA No.1870/2023 3 2025:KER:30292 APPENDIX OF RP 492/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER DATED 15.06.2023 SERVED ON THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.06.2023 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.07.2023 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.08.2023 DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE, DATED 14.08.2023 Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →