9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 748 - HC - Income TaxReview petition on Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - petitions seek review of order whereby interference was declined in view of the circular no. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance - HELD THAT - Petitioners informed that almost similar Review Petition in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1 Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhatia 2021 (7) TMI 1287 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT was also dismissed by this Court. In absence of showing as to how review jurisdiction can be invoked and further showing ingredients, on which review jurisdiction can be exercised, interference is declined.
Issues: Review of order based on circular issued by Ministry of Finance regarding tax evasion activities.
Analysis: The judgment involves the review of an order dated 04/12/2019, where interference was declined based on circular no. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The petitioners argued that in cases of organized tax evasion, the circular should not be an impediment. The court questioned the scope of review jurisdiction and the parameters for exercising it, but the petitioners failed to provide a satisfactory response. The court emphasized that review jurisdiction is limited, similar to Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. The court referred to a similar case where a review petition was dismissed based on circulars related to monetary limits and appeals in cases of organized tax evasion. The petitioners in the present case failed to show how the review jurisdiction could be invoked or provide the necessary ingredients for its exercise. The court reiterated that unless there is an apparent error on the record or compliance with principles akin to Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, interference in review jurisdiction cannot be justified. Since the petitioners did not present any arguments to bring the matter within the scope of review jurisdiction, the court dismissed both review petitions. In conclusion, the court held that without demonstrating how review jurisdiction can be invoked and without presenting the necessary ingredients for its exercise, interference in the review process cannot be allowed. Therefore, both review petitions were dismissed based on the lack of justification for invoking review jurisdiction.
|
