Rvwo/19/2023 Ia No. Ga/1/2023, Ga/2/2023 Prakasho Devi Saria v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Siliguri

OD – 7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE RVWO/19/2023IA NO. GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023PRAKASHO DEVI SARIAVs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI BEFORE :THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 17[th] May, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia, Adv.Ms. Radhika Agarwal, Adv.Ms. Madhushree Dutta, Adv...for petitioner/revisionistMr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.…for respondent The Court : - Heard learned Counsel on either side. There is a delay of 283 days in filing this review application. Uponperusal of the averments set out in the application for condonation of delay,we find sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the reviewapplication within the period of limitation. Hence, the delay in filing thereview application is condoned. This review application has been filed to review the judgement andorder dated 14.06.2022 in ITAT/138/2021. The said appeal filed by therevenue along with the batch of cases were heard on several dates and by acommon judgement and order dated 14.06.2022 appeal filed by the revenuewas allowed and substantial questions of law were answered in favour of therevenue. By this review application, the assessee seeks for recalling of the said order on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal has beenimplemented and refund order dated 17.5.2019 was passed much prior tothe department filing the appeal before this Court. As rightly pointed out bythe learned standing Counsel for the revenue, this fact was not brought tothe notice of this Court when the appeals were heard though the assesseewas served and was represented by Counsel. It appears that the Counselpresently filed the review application was not appearing for the assesseewhen the appeals were heard. Therefore, on the said ground we cannotentertain a review application. That too to review a common judgmentwherein the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of therevenue. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and thatthe department has already implemented the order of the Tribunal andrefund was effected to the assessee, we find that the said amount which hasalready been refunded to the assessee, should not be recovered by thedepartment on account of the judgement dated 14.06.2022. With the above clarification, the review application stands disposed of. Affidavit-of-service is kept on record. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) pkd/GH.