2019 (12) TMI 411 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax refusing to entertain the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner against the assessment order - HELD THAT - Review Petitioner has reiterated the grounds taken in the review petition. The learned counsel submits that the judgment under review proceeds on an erroneous premise that the Petitioner is guilty of suppression and contends that no notice was served. It is also contended that the Petitioner is not connected with the film laboratory and the findings rendered are not borne out from the record. Division Bench had refused to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the reasons set out in the judgment. We find that the review petition is seeking rehearing of the writ petition on the issues already argued and concluded. The review petition urges grounds about correctness of the findings recorded. It is not possible for us to entertain the grounds raised in the review jurisdiction, as we cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction. The Petitioner has his remedy to challenge the judgment and order under review as per law.

Summary

Issues:
Review of oral judgment and order dated 27 August 2014 in Writ Petition No.127 of 2007 challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax refusing to entertain the Revision Application filed against the assessment order.

Analysis:
In this case, the Petitioner had filed a review petition seeking a review of the oral judgment and order dated 27 August 2014 passed in Writ Petition No.127 of 2007. The Petitioner had initially challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which refused to entertain the Revision Application against the assessment order. The writ petition was dismissed after detailed consideration. The Petitioner argued that the Assessment Order was without jurisdiction as the statutory requirement of notice was not satisfied. The Respondent- Revenue contested the petition. The Division Bench observed that the feature film of the Petitioner was attached by the Respondent, which would make the Petitioner aware of the attachment through the film laboratory. The Division Bench concluded that the suppression of facts by the Petitioner regarding the attachment of the film made the case regarding the service of notice doubtful. The Division Bench also made observations regarding the postal acknowledgment of the notice/order.

The learned counsel for the Review Petitioner reiterated the grounds in the review petition, arguing that the judgment under review proceeded on an erroneous premise of suppression and that no notice was served. It was contended that the Petitioner was not connected with the film laboratory, and the findings were not supported by the record. The Division Bench had refused to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, stating that the review petition was seeking rehearing on already argued and concluded issues. The review petition raised grounds about the correctness of the findings recorded, but the Court held that it could not entertain these grounds in the review jurisdiction as it could not exercise appellate jurisdiction. The Court noted that the Petitioner had the remedy to challenge the judgment and order under review as per the law. Ultimately, the review petition was rejected.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by the parties, the observations made by the Division Bench, and the final decision of the Court to reject the review petition.