What did the High Court hold?

The Court found that the review petition did not present any ground for review based on an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court considered entertaining the review petition as a re-hearing of the matter.

The Revenue filed a review petition seeking to recall an order passed by the High Court in an earlier appeal. The petition was filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

What were the issues?

Whether the review petition presented valid grounds for review, specifically an error apparent on the face of the record, and if entertaining it would amount to a re-hearing.

CIT vs Ingersoll-Rand (India) Ltd | Karnataka High Court 2022

- 1 -

RP No. 136 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 136 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 PRESENT ADDRESS THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3), PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE) AND: INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LTD., PLOT NO.35, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI, BENGALURU-562109,

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

RP No. 136 of 2022

(REP. BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY MR. P.R. SHUNHAKAR) …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW / RECALL THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITA NO.6/2011.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, NAGAPRASANNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

The revenue has preferred the subject review petition seeking review of an order passed by this Court in I.T.A.No.6/2011, disposed on 11.03.2020.

A perusal at the averments in the review petition would indicate that no ground is putforth by the petitioners for a review of the order on the score that the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The only ground discernible from the averments in the petition is that, the Tribunal had committed an error in passing the order. This is what is considered and rejected

- 3 -

RP No. 136 of 2022

while passing the order. Therefore, entertaining the review petition would be rehearing the matter all over again, without seeking such a review.

The review petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LTD.,

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments