What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay as the reasons provided were not satisfactory. Consequently, the review petition itself was also dismissed on grounds of delay, latches, and lack of merit.

The Commissioner of Income-tax and Assistant Commissioner filed a review petition to review a previous High Court order. They sought condonation of a significant delay of 677 days in filing the review petition.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the review petition was sufficiently explained and if there were grounds to review the original judgment.

CIT vs M/S Syndicate Bank | Karnataka High Court 2012

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012, : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA REVIEW PETITION No.343 OF 2012 Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, C.R. Building, Attavara, Mangalore. 2. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ...Petitioners (By Shri. K.V.Aravind, Advocate) And: M/s. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Head Office, Manipal. …Respondent *****

This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the order dated 01/06/2010 passed in I.T.A.No.1137/2008, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

2 This Review Petition coming on for Orders, this day, N.K.Patil J., made the following: O R D E R This Review Petition is filed by the petitioners for review of the judgment dated 1st June 2010, passed in I.T.A.No.1137/2008, by this Court. 2. Along with this Review Petition, learned counsel for petitioners has filed I.A.No.1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 677 days in filing this review petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners. After perusal of the statements made in the Affidavit, accompanying the application, it can be seen that the delay of 677 days in filing the review petition has not been explained satisfactorily by showing sufficient cause. The reasons assigned at paragraphs 2 and 3 in the affidavit accompanying the application do not inspire the confidence of this Court

3 nor can any credibility be attached to it. Therefore, I.A.I/2012 is liable to be dismissed as misconceived. 4. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for review petitioners and also gone through the judgment under review dated 1st June 2010, passed in I.T.A.No.1137/ 2008. After going through the same, we do not find any good ground to entertain the review petition. Hence, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, I.A.I/2012 as also the review petition filed by review petitioners are dismissed both on ground of delay and latches as also on merit. SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE BMV*

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

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