Case LawHigh Court › Mjc/2575/2010 Of M/S Bengali Singh Huf T...

Mjc/2575/2010 Of M/S Bengali Singh Huf Throug v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr…

High Court 10 Nov 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Mjc/2575/2010 Of M/S Bengali Singh Huf Throug v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr…
Date of order
10 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Mjc/2575/2010 Of M/S Bengali Singh Huf Throug v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr…, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

5 10-11-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2575 of 2010 M/S BENGALI SINGH (HUF) THROUGH BENALI SINGH ATED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SON OF LATE SANT LAL SINGH, R/O SUMITRA SADAN, BOARING ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. S.K. PURI, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA… PETITIONER. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR… RESPONDENT ----------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted that the order dated 18-3-2010 passed in Civil Review No. 129 of 2009 be reviewed and recalled in view of law laid down subsequently by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/S D.N.Singh Vrs. Commissioner Income Tax ( 2010 (2) PLJR 1059). The aforesaid Full Bench judgment over-ruled the view taken in annexure-A, which was based upon orders passed in two other review cases, and has held that under Artcle 215 of the Constitution of India, High Court has power as well as duty to correct any apparent error in respect of any order passed by it and such power is plenary power of the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting on the basis of Full Bench Judgment noticed above that in case this Court finds any apparent error in respect of any order passed by this Court, such error can be Naresh corrected under review jurisdiction in view of plenary power of this Court. Even after noticing the legal position aforesaid, we have found no error apparent on the face of the record to go into the merits of the dispute which has been finally settled by disposal of Civil Review No. 1 of 2009 on 11-2-2009 by this Court in terms of a direction of the Apex Court. The order dated 11-2-2009 passed in Review No. 1 of 2009 was challenged before the Supreme Court but the Special Leave Petition was dismissed after condoning the delay by order dated 23-3-2009. Without doubting the legal position noticed above, we do not find any scope to interfere in the matter as we find no apparent error on the record. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to recall the order dated 18-3-2010 as that would be a futile exercise of power. This modification application is, therefore, dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( C. M. Prasad, J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan