What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the direction for remand was incongruous with the substantial question of law being answered in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Court decided to delete the paragraph containing the remand direction.

The assessee sought a review of a High Court judgment, arguing that a direction for remand in paragraph 10 was inconsistent with a finding in paragraph 11 that favored the assessee. The revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition against the original judgment.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether a direction for remand in a High Court judgment was appropriate when a substantial question of law was decided in favor of the assessee, and if such an error could be rectified through a review petition.

M/S Mechelonic Welders Pvt Ltd vs DCIT | Karnataka High Court 2021

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO.57 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

M/S Wipro Ltd., Doddakannelli, Sarjapura Road, Bengaluru-560 025, Represented by its, Senior Manager(Finance), Sri. Achal Dass.

…. Petitioner

(By Sri.Ganesh S. Senior Counsel for Sri. Krishna R.B., Advocate)

AND

Principal Commissioner,

Of Income-tax 7,

BMTC Complex,

Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034.

2 2. Deputy Commissioner of

Income-tax, Circle-12(5),

BMTC Complex,

Koramangala,

Bengaluru-560 034. …Respondents

(By Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate )

This Review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying to review a) That the said Judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated:09.12.2020 in ITA No.464/2017 be reviewed and rectified by deleting para 10 of the Judgment. b) For such further and other orders and directions as this Hon’ble Court may consider appropriate, in the circumstances of the case.

This review petition coming on for admission, this day, Alok Aradhe J, made the following:

ORDER

Mr.S.Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner and Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Heard.

This petition has been filed seeking modification of the judgment dated 09.12.2020 passed by this Court in ITA No.464/2017.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that paragraph 10 contains a direction for remand of the matter to the Tribunal and the same is incongruous to the finding recorded in para 11, in which substantial question of law has been answered in favour of the assessee.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that against the judgment dated 09.12.2020 revenue has filed SLP (Civil) No.11582/2021, which is pending.

We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. Mere filing of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, would not be a bar to exercise of this power to correct the error in the judgment passed by this Court which has crept in.

4 7. From perusal of record it is evident that paragraph 10 or 11 are incongruous. In para 11, substantial question of law No.2 framed has been answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the question of remitting the matter to the Tribunal does not arise. Therefore para 10 of the judgment dated 09.12.2020 passed in ITA No.464/2017, is deleted.

Accordingly, review petition is disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

Cm/-

M/S MECHELONIC WELDERS PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments