Rp/336/2014 Of The Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd.,Puna v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/2ND ASWINA, 1936 RP.No. 336 of 2014 () ----------------------------- TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/02/2012 IN I.T.A. NO.130/2011. ....... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:-------------------------------------------------- REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691 305. BY ADVS.SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-09-2014, ALONG WITH RP. NO. 337 OF 2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 336 of 2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE ACOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/09/2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP NO.33052/2012. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.336 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.342 of 2014,R.P.No.337 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.341 of 2014,R.P.No.344 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.349 of 2014,R.P.No.345 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.350 of 2014,R.P.No.348 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.354 of 2014andR.P.No.349 of 2014 & C.M.Appl.No.353 of 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24[th] day of September, 2014ORDER Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.These review petitions are coming up with applications seekingcondonation of enormous period of delay. They are directedagainst a common judgment dated 21.2.2012, rendered indifferent Income Tax Appeals which were bunched up andheard. Though we are not satisfied that there are sufficientgrounds to condone the delay, in terms of the provisions ofSection 5 of the Limitation Act, we have heard the learnedcounsel for the review petitioner on the grounds of reviewsought to be urged as well. We have also heard learnedstanding counsel for the Income Tax Department. 2.The crux of the arguments is that Rule 7 A (2) of the Income TaxRules has been understood and applied by carving out anunavailable dichotomy and thereby giving deferential treatmentRules has been understood and applied by carving out anunavailable dichotomy and thereby giving deferential treatment to rubber plantations vis-a-vis coffee and tea. This veryargument proceeds on the nature of the contents of paragraph 7of the common judgment sought to be reviewed. That contains aclear expression of the application of mind of the learned Judgesto the relevant provision which was under consideration. Thefact of the matter remains that hearing the Income Tax Appeals,learned Judges have come to a particular conclusion. Even if adifferent interpretation is possible on the relevant statutoryprovision, we are unable to see that there is any ground to holdthat there is an error apparent on the face of the record or otherground for review of judgment. It is trite law that an applicationfor review cannot be treated as one to extend an opportunity ofre-hearing of an appeal on any issue. For these reasons, thereview petitions fail. In the result, C.M. Applications and review petitions aredismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE