Rp/590/2022 Of Gurumukh Ahuja v. Income Tax Department

Signature Not Verified SAN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU &HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTION THE 1[st] OF JULY, 2022 REVIEW PETITION No. 590 of 2022 Between:-GURUMUKH AHUJA S/O PRAHLAD AHUJA ,AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS R/O F-12 PANCHSHEEL NAGARNARMADA ROAD JABALPUR, M.P. (MADHYAPRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI NITIN AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE ) AND1.INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGHINCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, INDIA. (DELHI) 2.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) INCOME TAXOFFICE AAYKAR BHAWAN NAPIER TOWNJABALPUR M.P (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI KUNAL DUBEY, RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2) T h i s petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI passed the following: ORDER The petitioner has filed this application for review of the order dated26.04.2022 passed in W.P. No.9041/2022. The contention of the petitioner isthat this Court while deciding the above petition in paragraph No.17 observedthat the petitioner demanded opportunity of physical hearing vide his replywhich was contained in Annexure P/19 to the writ petition and thus, while taking Signature Not VerifiedSAN 2 this Court to Annexure P/19, the petitioner submit that a perusal of AnnexureP/19 reveals that the petitioner had demanded personal hearing and not thephysical hearing. Therefore, submit that there is an error apparent on the face ofthe record and thus, the order dated 26.04.2022 deserves to be reviewed.Heard the counsel for the petitioner. This Court while taking note of Page No.58 of the writ petitioncategorically dealt with the petitioner's contention in paragraph Nos.15 and 16of the order. The petitioner had earlier also demanded the personal hearing and,therefore, vide Annexure P/15, the petitioner was intimated that there was noprovision for physical hearing and physical hearing was not permissible duringCOVID-19 pandemic period. Therefore, once the petitioner was intimated videAnnexure P/15 that he can take recourse to faceless assessment scheme for thepurpose of virtual hearing, thus, apparently the subsequent demand of thepetitioner vide Annexure P/19 was for physical hearing only. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order dated 26.04.2022 passedin W.P. No.9014/2022. It is neadless to emphasis that the scope of review islimited. The powers of review can only be exercised if there is an error apparenton the face of the record or the same has resulted into miscarriage of justice.The error must be apparent and should not be one which is to be found out bya long drawn process of scrutiny of records. In our considered view, there is no error apparent on the face of record,therefore, the review petition stands dismissed. (SHEEL NAGU)JUDGEShub (MANINDER S BHATTI)JUDGE Signature Not VerifiedSAN