Rp/653/2020 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 v. Shri Jwala Prasad Urmaliya

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRAON THE 24[th] OF AUGUST, 2022 REVIEW PETITION No. 653 of 2020 Between:- PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2,JABALPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,MISSION CHOWK, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI ASHUTOSH UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE) .....PETITIONER ANDSHRI JWALA PRASAD URMALIYA, KOTHINAKA, PURANIK TOLA, CIVIL LINES, SATNA(MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI SAPAN USRETHE - ADVOCATE) .....RESPONDENT This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following: ORDER There is a delay of 76 days in filing this review petition. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. Hence, I.A. No.161 of 2021, anapplication for condonation of delay, is allowed. Delay in filing the reviewpetition is condoned. This review petition is filed seeking to review the order dated 30.11.2019passed by the Division Bench of this Court in I.T.A. No.139 of 2016. In terms 2 whereof, based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for theappellant-Revenue that the tax effect involved is less than Rs.1 Crore, theappeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Presently, it is stated that even though it isbelow the monetary limit prescribed by the Board's Circular No.17 of 2019dated 08.08.2019 but the case is covered by the exceptions provided in Point10(c) of the Board's Instructions No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. Hence, hepleads that due to an erroneous submission, the petition be allowed. The sameis disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. He relied on variousdocuments in support of his case. However, on considering the reasons, we are of the considered view thatthe petition requires to be allowed. The contention of the review petitioner isthat there is an error committed by him in granting concession to the court whilepassing the order. Therefore, when a submission is made by the learned counselthat he has committed an error, grace demands that the submissions made bythe learned counsel be accepted. There is no need to go into a microscopicexamination of the same. Therefore, we find it rather surprising that variouscontentions have been urged by the respondent even though the learned counselfor the appellant has pleaded that it is his error in making such a concession. Hence, for all these reasons, the review petition is allowed. The orderdated 30.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in I.T.A. No.139of 2016 is reviewed and recalled. I.T.A. No.139 of 2016 is restored to file. psm (RAVI MALIMATH)CHIEF JUSTICE (VISHAL MISHRA)JUDGE