M/S SPOORTHI SADAN CONVENT, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (MATTER PERTAINING TO DHARWAD BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.100077/2016(T-IT) IN ITA NO.100065/2015 C/W REVIEW PETITION NO.100078/2016 IN ITA NO.100066/2015

IN RP NO.100077/2016: BETWEEN:

M/S.SEVA SADAN CONVENT, K.H.B. COLONY, M.I.G. 257, 5TH CROSS, MUDDEBIHAL – 5862012 BIJAPUR, PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHOR, SR.CELINE MENDONCA, AGED 64 YRS, D/O MR.ROSARIO MENDONCA SUPERIOR, PRESENTLY,

2 SR.SARITA SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O LADINE D’SOUZA.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI.V.K.GURUNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM – 590 001.

…RESPONDENT

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD: 17.02.2016 PASSED IN THE ITA NO.100065/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

IN RP NO.100078/2016: BETWEEN:

M/S. SPOORTHI SADAN CONVENT, NEAR ANJUMAN COLLEGE, HUNASAGI ROAD, TALLIKOTI – 586214, DIST.BIJAPUR, PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHOR, SR.CELINE MENDONCA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, D/O MR.ROSARIO MENDONCA

3 SUPERIOR, PRESENTLY SR.ELIZABETH KURIAKOSE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O KURIAKOSE MAMPALLY.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI.V.K.GURUNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

…RESPONDENTS

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD: 17.02.2016 PASSED IN THE ITA NO.100066/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE HIGH COUR OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS ALONG WITH I.A.I/16 THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

4 ORDER

As such, in both the matters, there is delay in preferring the review petitions. Even if a lenient view is taken on the aspects of delay, in order to see that the merits may not be frustrated, we have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the merits of the review petition. 2. All grounds sought to be canvassed in the review petitions are the grounds which may be available in the appeal against the order of this Court. No error apparent on the face of the record has been satisfactorily demonstrated. 3. Under the circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the review petitions. 4. As there is no merit in the review petitions, even if delay is condoned, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. Hence, delay is condoned.

5 5. Accordingly, Review Petitions as well as I.As shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

Sk/-