What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay due to insufficient and unconvincing reasons. Consequently, the review petition itself was also dismissed as lacking merit.

The Commissioner of Income Tax filed a review petition seeking to review a previous judgment. The petition was filed with a significant delay of 722 days.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the review petition could be condoned. The court also considered if there was any error in the original judgment.

CIT vs Shri H D Prakash | Karnataka High Court 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013

:PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA

R.P No.1036 OF 2012

BETWEEN

The Commissioner of Income Tax, No.55/1, Shilpashree, Vidyaranya Complex, Vishveshwaranagar, Mysore.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Circle-1,

Hassan

... Petitioners

(By Sri. K.V. Aravind, Advocate)

AND

Shri H.D. Prakash, Pro. Shree Traders, APMC Yard, B.M. Road, Hassan.

... Respondent

This RP is filed Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying to review the Judgment dated 21/09/2010 passed in ITA No.747/2008, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

This R.P coming on for Orders this day, N.K. PATIL J., made the following:

:O R D E R : The petitioners have filed this review petition praying to review the Judgment dated 21.09.2010 passed in ITA No.747/2008. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri. K.V. Aravind.

Along with the petition, IA No.1/2013 is filed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners praying to condone the delay of 722 days in filing the review petition. 4. The delay in filing the petition is explained in para Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit. The reasons given in para Nos.2, 3, and 4 of the affidavit are omnibus in nature and there is no valid and cogent reason assigned to condone the delay of 722 days in

filing the petition. There is no truth in the explanation offered. They are bound to explain each day’s delay satisfactorily. In view of non-explanation of delay by assigning cogent reasons, no credibility can be attached to the statements made at Para Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit. Therefore the application, I.A.No.1/2013 filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed as devoid of merits. 5. However in the interest of justice, we have perused the Judgment dated 21.09.2010 passed in ITA No.747/2008. On perusal of the same it can be seen that the appeal has been disposed of on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the identical appeal filed by them in ITA No. 744/2009 has already been dismissed at the stage of admission itself, therefore following the said judgment the said appeal may also be disposed of. Further learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners fairly submitted that the judgment passed in the said ITA. No.744/2009 has already reached finality as they have not challenged the said judgment. Therefore, We do not find any error on the face of the impugned judgment. Hence, the review petition filed by the petitioners is also dismissed as devoid of merits.

Sd/- JUDGE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H D PRAKASH

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments