By Sri. Aravind v. Chavan, Advocate

Digitally signedby VANDANA SLocation: HighCourt ofKarnataka -1-RP No. 852 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORETHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMARREVIEW PETITION NO.852 OF 2022 BEIT WEEN 1.INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE - 4(3)(1) CIRCLE 4(3)(1) BMTC BUILDING, | SO FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCKKORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. 2.PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [J AX- BMTC BUILDING, — SO FEE! ROAD, 6 BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE)| AND: SHRI. SYED ALEEMULLAH @ SYED ALEEMS/O LATE S A JALEEL| AGED 67 YEARS, ©NO.13/14, 7 CROSS, | PANDURANGA NAGARA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, — BANGALORE-560 069| RESPONDENT. (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE). THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 4/7 RULE 1 R/WSECTION 114 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW JUDGEMENT|DATED 18/11/2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.19928/7021._ THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE!COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -).- ORDER 1This Review Petition by the review petitioners is directed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2021 passed by|this Court in W.P.No.19928/2021, whereby the said writ petition|was disposed of as under: “6. Inthe result, | pass the following order:| a) Petition is allowed. b) Impugned assessment order at Annexure-D dated2/.12.20716 Is hereby quashed.2/.12.20716 Is hereby quashed. c) Ihe matter is remitted back to respondent No.7 for|reconsideration afresn bearing in mind the aforesaid|decisions of this Court referred to in the body of this|order.reconsideration afresn bearing in mind the aforesaid|decisions of this Court referred to in the body of this|order. All rival contentions between the parties including the|applicability/non-applicability of the aforesaid decisions are|kept open, to be aaqjudicated upon by respondent No. Assessing Autnority. "applicability/non-applicability of the aforesaid decisions are|kept open, to be aaqjudicated upon by respondent No. Assessing Autnority. " 2.|The impugned order also indicates that one of thejudgments recorded in the body of the order is the decision of this|Court In the case ot |SYED ALEEMULLAH @ SYED ALEEM VS.DY.COMMISSIONEROF|INCOME-TAXPassed|inITANo.6/77/2017 DATED 08.04.2021.The main grievance of the -3- review petitioner is that the said decision Is challenged by them andconsequently, the impugned order deserves to be modified. 3.|Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitstnat tnere is no merit in the petition and tnat the same Is liable to bedismissed. A |In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, sincethe review petitioners-Revenue has challenged the order of this|Court In.syed Aleem’s case supraby preferring a ReviewPetition, | deem it just and appropriate to clarify the impugned order|by directing the review petitioners to reconsider the matter afresh inaccordance with law. 5 |subject to the aforesaid directions, the Review Petitionstands disposed of. Sd/-JUDGE| BMCList No.: 1 SI No.: 58|