9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, they are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. There is delay of 671 days in filing the review applications. The same is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the assessees. The reasons assigned for the delay in filing the review applications are reproduced hereinbelow for convenience: "1. That the impugned judgment under review was passed by this Hon'ble Court on 17.12.2012 on the appeal filed by the income tax department against the judgment passed by the learned I.T.A.T. 2. That after the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 17.12.2012 the counsel for the appellant obtained the certified copy of the order dated 17.12.2012 and sent to the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the sufficiency of foregoing reasons thus furnished in support thereof, delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Delay condonation applications are, therefore, allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the assesses/respondents placed reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 390 (Bom.) to argue that the review against the judgment under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & others, 1980 (Supp) SCC 420, wherein it was held : "13. We are unable to appreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Patel Narshi Thakershi's case held that no review lies on merits unless a statute specifically provides for it. Obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal." 6. Learned counsel for the revenue/review applicant, thereafter, relied upon a Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in M/s D. N. Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna & another, 2010 (2) PLJR 1059 , which, in turn, placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. M. Thomas vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 1 SCC 666, in which, it was held as follows: "14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43, which concluded that the principles analogous to those flowing from Section 21 of CPC are applied to various situations not only to the proceedings arising out of the Code but also in special statues. There is no reason to limit its application to review proceedings. 9. It was further held in Jolly's case (supra) : "4.12 In view of our above discussion, we would adopt the view of the Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in case of D.N. Singh (supra). We have also given our own independent reasons. We may record that the Patna High Court had not relied upon Section 260A(7) of the Act, which in our opinion, is an additional ground to believe that the High Court does enjoy the power of review not only as a constitutional Court, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
