Assistant Commissioner Ofincome Tax Circle v. Panduranga Timbloindustrias, Thr. Itsconstituted Attorney,Anant Lawande

Aura IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Civil Application (Review) No. 3 of 2020 In Writ Petition NO.1104 of 2017 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 1,MARGAO AND ANR., APPLICANTS Versus PANDURANGA TIMBLOINDUSTRIAS, THR. ITSCONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,ANANT LAWANDE., RESPONDENTS Ms. Susan Linhares, Advocate for the Applicants.Mr. Mihir Nanewadekar, Advocate with P. Karpe,Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: MANISH PITALE & M. S. JAWALKAR, JJDATED: 24th SEPTEMBER, 2021 P.C. 1.By this Review application, the department is before thisCourt seeking review of Judgment and order dated 9/7/2019passed by this Court, only in so far as Writ Petition No.1104 of2017 is concerned. 2.The ground for seeking review is that, according to thereview-applicant, the aforesaid writ petition was wrongly clubbedwith a bunch of writ petitions, wherein the contention of theassessee was that re-opening of assessment could not have beenundertaken based on Justice Shah Commission Report. Theapplicant contends that in the present case concerning assessmentyear 2010-2011, re-opening of the proceedings was undertakenbased on information received from office of the DCIT Circle,New Delhi and not on the Shah Commission Report. On thebasis of this distinction sought to be drawn by the applicant, ithas been claimed that there has been an error apparent on the faceof the record and, therefore, the Judgment and order of thisCourt needs to be reviewed to the extent of this Court disposingof Writ Petition no.1104 of 2017. 3.Ms. Susan Linhares, the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the applicant made submissions in terms of thestatements made in the review application, seeking to draw theaforesaid distinction between Writ Petition No.1104 of 2017 andthe other Writ petitions disposed of by the said Judgment andorder. 4.On the other hand, Mr. Mihir Nanewadekar, the learnedcounsel appearing for the non- applicant submitted that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, for the reason that ifthis Court peruses the reasons for re-opening of the assessment,although it is stated that the exercise is sought to be undertakenon the basis of the information received from the DCIT Circle ,New Delhi, the whole basis of re-opening the assessmentproceedings is based on the aspect of under invoicing on accountof export of iron ore, based on the recommendations contained inthe Shah Commission Report. In this regard, the learned counselinvited attention of this Court to the manner in which theobjections raised by the non-applicant were dealt with anddisposed of by an order dated 17/11/2017 passed by the applicantherein. It was brought to the notice of this Court that copiousreferences were made to the Shah Commission Report and thevery basis of calculating the extent of under invoicing was basedon the Shah Commission Report. On this basis it was submittedthat by a conscious judicial order Writ Petition No.1104 of 2017was clubbed with other similarly situated petitions. On this basisit was contented that there was no error apparent on the face ofthe record in the Judgment and order dated 9/7/2019 passed bythis Court. 5.We have perused the documents placed on record,including the reasons for re-opening assessment in the case of thenon-applicant assessee in the present case. A perusal of the order 5.We have perused the documents placed on record,including the reasons for re-opening assessment in the case of thenon-applicant assessee in the present case. A perusal of the order dated 17/11/2017, passed by the applicant rejecting theobjections raised by the non-applicant assessee indeed shows thatthe entire exercise of re-opening the assessment was undertakenwith reference to the Shah Commission Report pertaining tounder invoicing in connection with the export of iron ore. We aresatisfied that the issue arising in Writ Petition No.1104 of 2017was the same as the issue raised in the other Writ Petitions andthat it was correctly clubbed with them and disposed of.Therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised in thepresent Review application. There is no error apparent on the faceof the record demonstrated by the applicant. Hence, the Reviewapplication is dismissed. M. S. JAWALKAR, J MANISH PITALE , J MARIA Digitally signed AURA by MARIA AURA PEREIRA PEREIRDate: 2021.09.27 A10:32:09 +05'30'