2017 (3) TMI 738 - HC - Income Tax

Application for rectification / review of its order 2016 (12) TMI 872 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Validity of reopening of assessment - notice issued to non existent company - Held that - By detailed and cogent reasons this Court has negatived the challenged to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Omission on the part of counsel to cite an authority of law does not amount to error apparent on the face of record so as to constitute ground for reviewing prior judgment. See case of Dokka Samuel 1997 (3) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT

Summary

Issues:
Review and recall of a common order passed in multiple Special Civil Applications based on the omission of certain legal precedents and the binding nature of tribunal decisions.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to applications filed by original petitioners of various Special Civil Applications seeking to review and recall a common order passed by the High Court. The applicants sought modification of the order based on the alleged oversight in not considering certain legal precedents. The applicants argued that the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Bombay High Court were not adequately addressed in the original order. They contended that the Tribunal's decision was binding on the Income Tax Officer, making it impermissible to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Similarly, they claimed that the Bombay High Court's decision clarified that a specific clause did not constitute a transfer. The applicants argued that these omissions constituted grounds for review.

The Revenue, represented by Shri Nitin Mehta, opposed the applications, stating that the High Court had already provided independent reasoning in the original order and that the Tribunal's decision was not binding on the High Court. Additionally, the Revenue argued that the omission of citing the Bombay High Court's decision did not amount to an error on the face of the record, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Dokka Samuel vs. Dr. Jacob Lazarus Chelly.

Upon hearing both parties, the High Court, through detailed analysis, concluded that the original order did not require rectification or review. The Court emphasized that the Division Bench had already dismissed the main Special Civil Applications with cogent reasons, independent of the cited legal precedents. The Court reiterated that the Tribunal's decision not being binding and the omission of citing the Bombay High Court's decision did not constitute grounds for rectification. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent again, the Court dismissed all the applications, affirming the original order's validity.

In summary, the High Court upheld the original order, emphasizing the independent reasoning provided and the lack of necessity to rectify or review based on the cited legal precedents. The judgment highlights the importance of thorough legal analysis and the limitations of citing legal precedents in seeking review or recall of a court order.