Rp/481/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Golf View Homes Ltd

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREDATEBD THIS THE DAY OF AUGUST 2014 PRESENT THER HON’BLE MR.JUSTICK N KUMAR| AN ] THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR| REVIEW PETITION NO.481 OF 2011INITA NO.80/2006 BETWEEN 1.THRB COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXC.R.BUILDINGQUEENS ROADBANGALORE|C.R.BUILDINGQUEENS ROADBANGALORE| 2 THRE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(2) C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD| BANGALORE —. PRTTTIONERS| (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTDNO.73/1, STH FLOOR, SHERIFF CENTREST. MARK'S ROADBANGALORE —. RESPONDENT (BY SRIYUTHS A SHANKAR & M LAVA, ADVS.) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.260AOF THE IT ACT R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR|REVIEW THERE ORDER DATED 27-07-2011 PASSED IN ITNO.80/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT|OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,THR COURT MADE THK FOLLOWING: ORDER This Review Petition is filed against the orderpassed by this Court on 27.07.2011 in ITA No.80/ 2006.The said appeal was preferred against the order passedby the Tribunal in ITA No.1742/Bang/2004 which was_an appeal by the Revenue even before the Tribunal. 2. The grievance before the Tribunal is, there wasanother appeal by the assessee which was numbered asITA No.1743/2004, in which the Tribunal has grantedcertain reliefs to the assessee. The Department isaggrieved by the same. As it was a common order thesaid questions have not been gone into by this Court inthe appeal and therefore it is submitted that a case forreview 1S made out by filing this review petition. — 3. The order passed by this Court in the revenue’s appeal is not found fault with. That is only the subjectmatter of the appeal. The correctness of the appealallowing the appeal of the assesseee was not the subjectmatter betore this Court. Even if it is a common order| when the common order is passed in connection with two appeals, the revenue was under an obligation to file two independent appeals which has not been done. Therefore, that is not a case for review. We do not seeany error which calls for interference.| 4. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. 5Consequently,theapplication filed|forcondonation of delay is also dismissed. Sd/-. JUDGE| JT/-| Sd/-| JUDGE|