9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 920 - HC - Income TaxRectification of mistake - estimation of income on bogus purchases - restriction of profit of the petitioner on sale and purchase from 3% to 1.5% - HELD THAT - As it is inferred that the modified or additional grounds in the Misc. Application were nothing but reproduction of the same original grounds stated in the Appeal and the core issue for adjudication in the Appeal and the Misc. Application was identical i.e. restriction of the profit of the Petitioners on sale and purchase from 3% to 1.5%. On due consideration on the submissions advanced, we are of the view that no case is made out to entertain the present Review Petitions seeking review of the order 2020 (2) TMI 271 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT .
Issues:
Review of order dated 31.01.2020 in Writ Petitions, Grounds for dismissal of Writ Petitions, Identical grounds in Appeal and Misc. Application, Core issue of profit restriction on sale and purchase. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved the review of an order dated 31.01.2020 in Writ Petitions seeking to set aside or modify the said order. The Court noted that the Review Petitioners aimed to challenge the order passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 2471 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 2477 of 2019. The Court observed that the grounds presented in the Appeal and the Misc. Application were identical, focusing on the restriction of profit on sale and purchase from 3% to 1.5%. The Court emphasized that the modified or additional grounds in the Misc. Application were merely repetitions of the original grounds stated in the Appeal, indicating the core issue for adjudication was the same in both. The Court further compared the grounds in the Appeal and the Misc. Application to justify the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. The Court specifically highlighted that the principal grounds in the Appeal were identical to those in the Misc. Application, emphasizing the similarity in the core issue of profit restriction. Despite the Review Petitioners arguing that the reproduction of grounds in the Misc. Application warranted a review, the Court concluded that such reproduction did not materially affect the previous order. The Court reiterated that seeking a review for re-hearing of the Appeal was impermissible in law, leading to the dismissal of both Writ Petitions with costs in the initial order dated 31.01.2020. After careful consideration of the submissions, the Court found no grounds to entertain the Review Petitions challenging the previous order, ultimately dismissing both Review Petitions. In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay, through a detailed analysis of the identical grounds presented in the Appeal and the Misc. Application, reaffirmed the dismissal of the Writ Petitions seeking to review the order dated 31.01.2020. The Court emphasized the importance of not reiterating the same grounds in different applications and reiterated that seeking a review for re-hearing of an Appeal was not permissible under the law. Consequently, the Court dismissed both Review Petitions, upholding the previous order and providing a comprehensive explanation for its decision.
|
