What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the original judgment did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with its previous decision in the exercise of its review jurisdiction.

The Revenue filed review petitions seeking to recall an order passed by the High Court in two Income Tax Appeals. The Revenue argued that a previous High Court decision in a similar case should apply. The Assessee contended that the Court had already considered this argument and found it inapplicable.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court's previous decision in a similar case was applicable to the present facts and whether the review petitions presented any new grounds for reconsideration.

Smt H S Vimala vs JCIT | Karnataka High Court 2021

Heard together (2 matters)

RP No.10 of 2021

RP No.9 of 2021

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

- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:20911-DB RP No.10 of 2021 C/W RP No.9 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO.10 OF 2021 C/W REVIEW PETITION NO.9 OF 2021

IN REVIEW PETITION NO.10 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1 (1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND:

M/S. ABBEY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. THE RESIDENCY, 7TH FLOOR 133/1, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALORE-560025. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HIMANSHU SINHA, ADV., & SRI. YASH VARMANI, ADV., & SRI. ANURAAG RAJAGOPALAN, ADV., FOR SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADV., &

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:20911-DB RP No.10 of 2021 C/W RP No.9 of 2021

SRI. ADIT SHAH, ADV.,)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PARYING TO REVIEW/RECALL THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITA NO.215/2014. PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO BE GRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN REVIEW PETITION NO.9 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1 (1) 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND:

M/S. ABBEY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. 7TH FLOOR, 133/1, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALORE-560025.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HIMANSHU SINHA, ADV., & SRI. YASH VARMANI, ADV., & SRI. ANURAAG RAJAGOPALAN, ADV., FOR SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADV., & SRI. ADIT SHAH, ADV.,)

- 3 -

NC: 2023:KHC:20911-DB RP No.10 of 2021 C/W RP No.9 of 2021

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PARYING TO REVIEW/RECALL THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITA NO.214/2014. PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO BE GRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

RP No.9/2021 has been filed seeking review / recall of the order dated 01.12.2020 passed in ITA 214/2014, whereas, RP No.10/2021 has been filed seeking review of the order dated 01.12.2020 passed in ITA 215/2014. 2. Learned counsel for the revenue while inviting the attention of this case to various clauses of the agreement executed between the parties in this case and various clauses in the case of 'M/S CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 AND OTHERS WP (C) No.6807/2012 dated 25.04.2014 submitted that the aforesaid decision applies to the facts of this case.

- 4 -

NC: 2023:KHC:20911-DB RP No.10 of 2021 C/W RP No.9 of 2021

On the other hand Learned Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that this court has considered the rival submissions and for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 01.12.2020 has held that the decision of M/S CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PRIVATE LIMITED supra does not apply to the facts of these cases. 4. It is trite law that in the garb or review, an issue cannot be permitted to re-agitated / re-argued. This court in para 5 and 6 has taken note of submissions made on behalf of the revenue and has recorded the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and thereafter, for the reasons assigned in the judgment has held that the decision of High Court of Delhi in M/S CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PRIVATE LIMITED supra does not apply to the facts of these cases.

- 5 -

NC: 2023:KHC:20911-DB RP No.10 of 2021 C/W RP No.9 of 2021

In view of the above, the judgment dated 01.12.2020 passed in ITA No.214 and 215/2014 neither suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court in exercise of review jurisdiction.

In the result, the review petitions fail and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

SMT H S VIMALA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments