Rp/337/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S H M Constructions

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BRBNGALURU Dated this the 30[th]day of October, 2015 Present THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINEET SARAN| CS THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B MANOHAR Review Petition 337 / 2014inITA 635 / 2006 Between. 1 Commissioner ot Income Tax C R Building, Queens Road Bangalore 2)Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(3), C R Building Queens Road, Bangalore Petitioners | (By Sri K V Aravind, Adv.) And M/s H M ConstructionsGeneva House# 14, Cunningham RoadBangalore 92 Respondent Review Petition is filed under O 41 R 1, CPCpraying to review/recall the order dated 20.1.2014 in ITA|6395/2006.| Petition coming on tor Orders this day,VineetSaran J..made the following: 2 ORDER This is an application filed by the Revenue tor|reviewing the judgment and order dated 20.1.2014 which|was passed by a Division Bench of the Court after hearing|learned counsel for parties and also after summoning and|looking into the records relating to assessment. The matter involved in the appeal was with regard toreopening of the assessment which was beyond the period|ol tour years. In the order which is sought to be reviewed,it has been categorically mentioned that neither there was|any order of the Commissioner granting approval under|section 151 of the Income Tax Act nor there was any)indication in the orders passed by the authorities below,|including the Tribunal nor was there any material on|record to show that such approval had been obtained. In)fact, by the said order, this Court had directed an inquiry|to be conducted with regard to disappearance of the|records relating to the assessment proceedings of the|aSS@€@SSe€@ 3 This review petition has now been filed on the basisOT|OnecommunicationmadebytheAssistantCommissioner of Income Tax to the Deputy Commissioner|of Income Tax stating therein that the former had been)directed to convey the approval tor reopening of the|assessment. It is a copy of such letter which was markedto the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, which has|been filed. The same does not even indicate as to on whichdatesuchapproval hadbeenaccordegdby.the Commissioner of Income Tax. Basing his arguments on|such letter, learned counsel submits that due approval had|been accorded by the Commissioner and thus, the)judgment passed by this Court be reviewed. We may mention here that along with the review|petition also, neither the order of the Commissioner has)been filed nor the reasons, if any recorded for reopening|the assessment have been filed. It 1s well settled legalposition that the scope of review is very limited and the|order/judgment can be reviewed only if it is established|that it suffers from error apparent on the face of the record| 4 or any other sufficient reason. It is not an appeal in|disguise. By means of a review petition, a litigant cannot|get another occasion to re-address the court again on|merits. For the reasons given hereinabove, we do not find anygood ground to review the order passed by the Division|Bench dismissing the appeal. Office has also pointed out that this review petition|has been filed with a delay of 58 days. We examined the|said application also and we do not find any good ground|to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay,as well as the review petition, are dismissed. An| Sd/-| Judge sd/- sd/-Judge