Rp/87/2015 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Canara Housing Development Company

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATEBD THIS THE 1 DAY OF DECEMBER 2016) PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR. REVIEW PETITION NO.87/2015 IN I.T.A. NO.38/2014 BETWEEN: THR DRBPUTY COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME - TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE — I (1) C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE — 560 OO1. _ PRTITIONER (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANYNO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX,PALACEK ROAL BANGALORE — 560 052) .. RESPONDEN (BY SRI.S.MAHESH & SANJAY YADAV,ADVOCATES)-ABSENT THIS PRTITION [IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER)DATED 25.07.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.38/2014, ONTHR FILKB OF THR HON’BLK HIGH COURT OFKARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS PRTITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONTHISDAY,JAYANTPATELJ°°|PASSEDTH EKHOLLOWING: ORDER The present petition has been preferred for reviewof the order dated 25.7.2014 passed in ITA 38/14. 2. We have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counselappearing for the petitioner. The respondent is served.The learned Advocate is not present when the matter iscalled out before this Bench. ~ 3. Learned counsel at the outset submitted that,the review is essentially with a view to get theobservations deleted at para.10 internal page.15 whichreads as under: “*,......4n the eye of law there is no ordeassessment.” 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of thecase which was before the Division Bench of this Court|in the aforesaid ITA 38/14, we do not find that evenotherwise also such an observation that, “there is no)assessment in the eye of law’ was called for, for thesimple reason that controversy at the most was to beexamined for the consequence on account of initiationof the proceedings under Section 153-A of the IncomeTax Act. oO. It is hardly required to be stated that theobservations oft the Court would be limited to thecontroversy involved only. We do not find that furtherdiscussion is required in this regard. Hence, theobservations made in the above referred decision dated|29./.2014 in ITA 38/14 so tar as the followingsentences deserves to be deleted ;. “In the eye of law, there ts no order ofassessment”. 6. Hence, the earlier order shall stand modifiedaccordingly. We make it clear that there will be nochange in any other part of the order which is sought tobe reviewed. v7. Review petition shall stand disposed ofaccordingly. ok/- Sd/-.JUDGE| Sd/-.JUDGE|