Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax1 v. Indore, Dated : 23.7.2021Heard Through Video Conferencing

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RP Nos.442/20, 443/20, 451/20, 469/20, 500/20, 502/20, 505/20, 513/20, 515/20 Review Petition No.442/2020 -(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhatia)Review Petition No.443/2020-(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhatia)Review Petition No.451/2020-(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 Vs. Amandeep Singh Bhatia)Review Petition No.469/2020-(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 Vs. Amandeep Singh Bhatia)Review Petition No.500/2020(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Swan Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)Review Petition No.502/2020(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Saurabh Sangla)Review Petition No.505/2020(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Swan Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)Review Petition No.513/2020(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. M/s Swan Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.)Review Petition No.515/2020(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Mukesh Sangla) Indore, Dated : 23.7.2021Heard through video conferencing. Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the review petitionerssubmits that since similar singular ground has been taken in all thereview petitions seeking review of the orders, the matters may beanalogously heard on admission. The reasonable prayer is accepted. For the reasons stated in the IAs, all the applications forcondonation of delay are allowed. Delay is condoned. (O R D E R) 1/Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits thatthis Court on the basis of Circular No.3/2018 dated 20.8.2018 andCircular dated 8.8.2019 opined that monetary limit was enhanced upto Rs.1 Crore in respect of the High Court. A further clarificatory HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 RP Nos.442/20, 443/20, 451/20, 469/20, 500/20, 502/20, 505/20, 513/20, 515/20 circular was issued on 6.9.2019 and Department has beenpermitted, irrespective of valuation, to file an appeal on merits incases involved in organized tax evasion activity. In view of aforesaid,learned counsel for the appellant prayed for and permitted towithdraw the appeal. 2/The review is prayed for in the teeth of Para 10(e) of theCircular dated 20.8.2018, which reads as under:- “10(e). Where addition is based on information receivedfrom external sources in the nature of law enforcementagencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/ SFIO / DirectorateGeneral of GST Intelligence (DGGI).” 3/Ms. Mandlik, learned counsel for the review petitionerssubmits that during the course of submission of scrutiny report(obtained after the order under review passed by the High Court), itwas observed by the assessing officer i.e. ACIT, Indore that thesearch and seizure operation was conducted by the Indore TaxDepartment and DG, Central Excise Intelligence, Indore whichconcluded that respondent is associated with Signet Group of Indoreand was involved in organized activities of tax evasion, which ledultimately the addition made by the AO. Thus, Clause 10(e)aforesaid is attracted. 4/On more than one occasion, the Bench put a question toMs. Mandlik when this scrutiny report was prepared and whetherany such material in this regard is produced to show that such reportfalls within the ambit of Para-10(e) but no response is received bythe Bench. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for thepetitioners has not chosen to answer as to how the aforesaid fallswithin the ambit of review jurisdiction. 5/This is trite that the power of review is limited. Unless it isshown that there exists an error apparent on the record or any other HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 RP Nos.442/20, 443/20, 451/20, 469/20, 500/20, 502/20, 505/20, 513/20, 515/20 4/On more than one occasion, the Bench put a question toMs. Mandlik when this scrutiny report was prepared and whetherany such material in this regard is produced to show that such reportfalls within the ambit of Para-10(e) but no response is received bythe Bench. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for thepetitioners has not chosen to answer as to how the aforesaid fallswithin the ambit of review jurisdiction. 5/This is trite that the power of review is limited. Unless it isshown that there exists an error apparent on the record or any other HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 RP Nos.442/20, 443/20, 451/20, 469/20, 500/20, 502/20, 505/20, 513/20, 515/20 ingredients which are in consonance with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC,interference in review jurisdiction cannot be made. Unfortunately noargument is advanced to bring the present matter within the ambit ofprinciples analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In absence thereof,the question of exercising the review jurisdiction does not arise. 6/The review petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. 7/Signed order be kept in the file of RP No.442/2020 and acopy thereof be placed in the file of RP Nos.443/20, 451/20, 469/20,500/20, 502/20, 505/20, 513/20, 515/20. (Sujoy Paul) Judge (Shailendra Shukla) Judge trilok/-