2018 (9) TMI 1816 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - inadvertent errors have been crept in, in the judgment wherein it has been recorded that there was no substantial business of the company after September, 2005 and substantial transactions took place while the original petitioner was Director, however it is not the case - some of the decisions, which have been mentioned in the judgment, were never put to the notice of the applicant and, therefore, the applicant was not having a fare chance or opportunity to meet with said decisions - Liability of directors of private company in liquidation u/s 179 - Director is called upon to pay the income-tax dues of one Hirak Biotech Limited for the AY 2006-07 - HELD THAT - Having gone through the contents of the application and keeping in view the concept of fair opportunity to the applicant, the Court deems it proper to recall the judgment dated 23.02.2017. To some extent, the applicant is justified in canvassing that inadvertently an assertion is made in the judgment that no substantial business of the company after September, 2005 took place and substantially transaction took place while petitioner was the Director and, therefore, without much entering into reexamination of facts, the Court deems it proper to recall the judgment as sought for so as to enable the applicant to meet with the case in detail. Further qua the decisions which are incorporated in the judgment, the applicant will have chance to meet with. So keeping all these circumstances, the judgments deems it proper to be recalled. Additionally, Court is inclined to accept the application keeping in view the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Pal (dead) through legal representative vs. Ram Manorath and Ors. 2017 (8) TMI 1477 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Resultantly, the present application is allowed. Main matter to be heard afresh in accordance with law on its own merits on the basis of relevant record which are part of the main petition.

Summary

Issues:
Review of judgment based on errors in the original judgment.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a review application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against a previous judgment dated 23.02.2017. The main petition challenged an order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring the petitioner, as a Director, to pay income tax dues for a specific Assessment Year. The applicant contends that errors were made in the judgment, specifically regarding the business activities of the company and the petitioner's involvement after September 2005. The applicant seeks a review to rectify these errors.

The senior advocate for the applicant argues that inadvertent errors were present in the judgment, particularly related to the business activities of the company and the petitioner's role as a Director. It is emphasized that certain decisions mentioned in the judgment were not brought to the applicant's notice, depriving them of a fair opportunity to respond. The application requests a recall of the judgment to address these issues and ensure a fair hearing.

On the other hand, the senior advocate for the authority opposes the review application, arguing that the case details were adequately presented in the original judgment. The advocate asserts that the petitioner had a significant role in the company and that the judgment accurately reflected the records and documents submitted. However, the advocate concedes that if the applicant was not given an opportunity to address the decisions mentioned in the judgment, the Court may exercise discretion in this matter.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court decides to recall the judgment dated 23.02.2017. The Court acknowledges the applicant's concerns regarding errors in the judgment and the need for a fair opportunity to address the case details. The recall is deemed necessary to allow the applicant to present their case effectively and address the discrepancies identified in the original judgment. The Court also cites a relevant Supreme Court case to support the decision to recall the judgment.

As a result, the review application is allowed, and the main matter is directed to be heard afresh in accordance with the law. The Court's decision to recall the judgment is based on the principles of fairness and ensuring that all relevant aspects of the case are properly considered.