Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Pathik Developers

C/SCA/18433/2014 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18433 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE ========================================================== ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I....Petitioner(s) Versus M/S PATHIK DEVELOPERS....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 27/07/2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI) 1By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.06.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Ahmedabad, by which, an application filed by the Assessee being Miscellaneous Application No.175/AHD/2013 for review has been accepted and the order which was passed by the Tribunal itself in favour of the Revenue was referred. 2By filing an affidavit-in-reply, the respondent has brought to notice of this Court in the case of Saroj Ceramics Industries v. Income Tax Officer [2014] 42 taxmann.com 372 (Gujarat) stating that the writ petition would not be maintainable and the Revenue can challenge the decision of the Tribunal in review application only by way of filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act). 3We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the aforesaid decision. We have also considered a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chem Amit v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2005] ITR 397, by which, a Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, the only remedy would be filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. 4The present petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it would be open for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 260A of the Ac. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not entered into the merit of the case. Rule is discharged. (A.J.DESAI, J.) chandresh (A.G.URAIZEE,J)