2011 (7) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Application for review - The figure of Rs.108,39,46,971/- is the amount which was deposited in the Natwest Bank, London. Even if this amount along with Rs.3,33,06,123/- was received during the financial years relevant to the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and not during the financial years 2004-05 to 2006-07, it does not make any difference to the final decision/outcome - Income Tax Department had filed an application for release of the funds in the Natwest Bank but the said application was rejected and a revision petition filed by the Income tax Department is pending - Deposits in the Natwest Bank represents payments received for services rendered by the applicant and this cannot be overlooked - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Review application filed due to factual errors in the decision dated 20th April, 2011.

Analysis:
The review application highlighted inadvertent factual errors in the decision, specifically regarding the amount received by the applicant in the relevant financial years and the timing of filing the income tax return. The applicant clarified that a portion of the funds was deposited in Natwest Bank, London, and the remaining in Deutsche Bank, New Delhi. The applicant argued that the FIR date should not impact the disclosure of funds received, as the income tax return was filed within the due date for the assessment year 2006-07.

The court acknowledged the discrepancy in the amount deposited in Natwest Bank, London, but emphasized that this did not alter the final decision. The court noted that the income tax return for the relevant year was filed after the FIR was registered, and other contentions raised by the applicant were examined but ultimately rejected. The court maintained that the figures and details in the decision were factually correct, and the applicant's arguments did not warrant a change in the outcome.

The applicant alleged that certain contentions were overlooked, including the lack of investigation in the Obra project, baseless corruption allegations, and pending applications related to fund release and tax payments. The court clarified that these contentions were considered and addressed in the original decision, particularly in paragraphs 16 to 18. The court dismissed the applicant's attempt to re-litigate the matter under the guise of a review, emphasizing that a rehearing was not permissible in this context. Consequently, the review application was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed without costs.