Rp/761/2023 Of Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Seoni v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Jabalpur

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESHON THE 19[th] OF OCTOBER, 2023 REVIEW PETITION No. 761 of 2023 BETWEEN:- JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONITHROUGH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SAHAKARIBHAVAN, NEAR BUS STAND, SONI, DISTRICT SEONI(MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI BHASKAR GANGULY - ADVOCATE ) .....PETITIONER AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX JABALPUR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, AAYAKARCHOWK, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)TAX JABALPUR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, AAYAKARCHOWK, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (MADHYAPRADESH) 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR AAYKAR BHAWANAAYKAR CHOWK, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR AAYKAR BHAWANAAYKAR CHOWK, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR(MADHYA PRADESH) 3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD SEONI, 1STFLOOR, WAINGANGA HEIGHTS, OPPOSITEVATIKA RESTAURANT, BARA PATTHAR, SEONIDISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)FLOOR, WAINGANGA HEIGHTS, OPPOSITEVATIKA RESTAURANT, BARA PATTHAR, SEONIDISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE) .....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sheel Nagu passed the following: Signature Not Verified ORDER which ITA No.202/2022 was dismissed in limine after holding that neither theproposed nor any substantial question of law is made out since the findings ofthe Tribunal below are essentially factual in nature, giving rise to no substantialquestion of law. 2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3 . After having heard learned counsel for review petitioner and havingperused the record, it is palpable from the order under review that this Courthad taken a conscious decision that the findings rendered by the Tribunal areessentially factual in nature without giving rise to any substantial question of law. 3.1 Perusal of paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 clearly reveals that the matter wasdealt with on merits and the proposed substantial questions of law by the reviewpetitioner were found to be not made out. 3.2 The decision taken by this Court by passing the order under reviewmay be erroneous but do not give rise to any palpable error. may be erroneous but do not give rise to any palpable error. 3.3 In the absence of any error on the face of the record, this Courtrefrains from interfering in the matter.refrains from interfering in the matter. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon various decisions of Apex Court, compilation of which has been provided. This Court has gone throughthe said decisions but find that the same do not assist the review petitioner asthe said cases are based on the facts and circumstances prevailing therein which are at variance to the facts and circumstances prevailing herein. 5. Consequently, review petition stands dismissed. No cost. Signature Not Verified (HIRDESH)JUDGE Signature Not Verified