Magadh Stock Exchange Association Arya Kumar Road v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, Beer Chandpatel Path, Patna.patel Path, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACIVIL REVIEW No.6 of 2021In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12043 of 2011 ====================================================== 1.Magadh Stock Exchange Association, 9th Floor, Ashiana Plaza, Bud Marg,P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali in the town and District of Patna, Bihar through itsDirector, Laxman Prasad, aged about 64 years, Male, Son of LateBishwanath Prasad, resident of 102, SLD Apartment, Kankarbagh Road,Patna, P.O. Lohia Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna, Pin - 800020,Bihar.P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali in the town and District of Patna, Bihar through itsDirector, Laxman Prasad, aged about 64 years, Male, Son of LateBishwanath Prasad, resident of 102, SLD Apartment, Kankarbagh Road,Patna, P.O. Lohia Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna, Pin - 800020,Bihar. 2.MAGADH STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION ARYA KUMAR ROAD ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, Beer ChandPatel Path, Patna.Patel Path, Patna. 2.The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, 3rd Floor,Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna.Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Sr. Advocate: Ms. Smriti Singh, AdvocateFor the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. SC====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHAORAL JUDGMENTORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 11-10-2023 The present civil review petition is filed for reviewingthe order dated 02.09.2020 passed in CWJC No. 12043 of 2011. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submittedthat in the absence of pleading this Court has proceeded to passorder as if the petitioner has questioned the validity of Section 43Bof Income Tax Act, 1961 in CWJC No. 12043 of 2011. This issuehas not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, whatever the observation in the order dated 02.09.2020 insofar as finding inrespect of challenge to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 isconcerned, the same would not be a hurdle for the petitioner.Further, whatever the finding given by this Court in respect ofchallenge to Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 stands recalled. 3. Insofar as interference with the finding on theimpugned revision order dated 20.01.2011 for A.Y. 2006-2007passed under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by theCommissioner of Income Tax-I, Patna, respondent no. 1 herein. Itis necessary to extract Para 15 of the order dated 02.09.2020,which reads as under:- “15. Hence on both counts, wesee no reason to accept the contentions ofthe petitioner- (a) Constitutional validityof the Act already stands affirmed by theHon’ble Apex Court in Exide IndustriesLimited (supra). (b) On the secondsubmission, undisputedly, petitioner hadnot deposited the amount deducted as STTwith the authorities, and it is not his casethat the same stood paid back/returned tothe person from whom it stood deducted.It is the admitted case of the petitionerthat since the petitioner was adopting themercantile system of accounting; he wasnot supposed to take any action. Even onthis count, given law discussed above,more so Exide Industries Limited (supra).(supra) and Mcdowell (supra), the orderscannot be said to be perverse and illegalwarranting interference by this Court.” Later portion of the order in Para 15, i.e., (b)insofar as challenge to the revision order dated 20.01.2011, Later portion of the order in Para 15, i.e., (b)insofar as challenge to the revision order dated 20.01.2011, the same has been decided on factual aspects read withjudicial pronouncements. We find no infirmity or errorapparent on the face of the record. Therefore, we dismissthe civil review petition, since there is no error insofar asfinding given by this Court in the order dated 02.09.2020.Further scope of review petition is limited as held by theApex Court in the following decisions. (a) S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannanand Ors. reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 185. (b) Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Services Ltd. and Anr., 2023Livelaw (SC) 506. (Para 14to 17). 4. Accordingly, the present Civil Review petition standsallowed in part. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Arun Kumar Jha, J) Jyoti/abhishek AFR/NAFRNAFRCAV DATENAUploading DateTransmission DateNA