Sambhav Energy Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-I,Jodhpur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Writ Review No. 135 / 2017 SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5,DAMODARAN STREET, KELLYS, CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU)- 600010THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR VIRENDRA MODI. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I,JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Writ Review No. 129 / 2017 SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5, DAMODARAN STREET, KELLYS, CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU)- 600010 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR VIRENDRA MODI. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 130 / 2017 PRAKASH BEVERAGES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KRISHNA NAGAR, PADEEB, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. DAKSHA JAIN W/O SH. VIRENDRA KU. MODI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 131 / 2017 SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5, DAMODARAN STREET, KELLYS, CHENNAI (TAMIL NADU)- 600010 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR VIRENDRA MODI. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 132 / 2017 KRISHNA DAIRY PRODUCT, KRISHNA NAGAR, PADEEB, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. DAKSHA JAIN W/O SH. VIRENDRA KU. MODI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 133 / 2017 DAKSHA KUMARI JAIN W/O SHRI VIRENDRA MODI, Aged About 48 Years, RESIDENT OF KUTUMB ADARSH NAGAR, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 134 / 2017 PRAKASH BEVERAGES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KRISHNA NAGAR, PADEEB, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. DAKSHA JAIN W/O SH. VIRENDRA KU. MODI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 136 / 2017 NAKODA LAND DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NH-14, NEHRU NAGAR, SIROHI THROUGH ITS PARTNER BHARAT DAS S/OMANDAS JA VAISHNAV AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 137 / 2017 NAKODA LAND DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NH-14, NEHRU NAGAR, SIROHI THROUGH ITS PARTNER BHARAT DAS S/OMANDAS JI VAISHNAV AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 138 / 2017 NAKODA LAND DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NH-14, NEHRU NAGAR, SIROHI THROUGH ITS PARTNER VIRENDRA MODI ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 139 / 2017 PRAKASH BEVERAGES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KRISHNA NAGAR, PADEEB, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. DAKSHA JAIN W/O SH. VIRENDRA KU. MODI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 138 / 2017 NAKODA LAND DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NH-14, NEHRU NAGAR, SIROHI THROUGH ITS PARTNER VIRENDRA MODI ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 139 / 2017 PRAKASH BEVERAGES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KRISHNA NAGAR, PADEEB, SIROHI, RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. DAKSHA JAIN W/O SH. VIRENDRA KU. MODI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 140 / 2017 MUKESH MODI S/O PRAKASH RAJ MODI, Aged About 57 Years, R/O ADARSH NAGAR, SIROHI-307001, RAJASTHAN. ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 141 / 2017 BHARAT DAS VAISHVAV S/O SH. MANDAS VAISHNAV, Aged About 51 Years, R/O ADARSH NAGAR LINK ROAD, SIROHI (RAJASTHAN) ----Petitioner Versus 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JODHPUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Sharin For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUROrder04/08/2017 These review petitions are barred by limitation from 8 days. Ignoring the same, we have looked into merits of the cases. As per the review petitioners the Court, whiledismissing the Income Tax Appeals under the order dated11.4.2017, erred while arriving at the conclusion that theAssessing Officer, though was not having fresh material for thepurpose of formation to believe that the income of any particularassessment year has escaped assessment, but with all bonafideshe noticed that certain documents escaped consideration and thatresulted into escape of income chargeable to tax. It is assertedthat on the count aforesaid the authority under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’)could have not been invoked. Before looking into merits, we would like to state thatthe authority to review an order can be exercised by the Court only on having eventualities as prescribed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In the cases in hand thesubmission advanced to review the order pertains to merits of the case and not relating to the eventualities necessary to review adecision earlier taken. While dismissing the petitions, we would like to statethat in the cases in hand, looking to the peculiar facts the Court held that the Assessing Officer despite having no fresh material rightly invoked the powers under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on noticing a serious error occurred while making regularassessment. The Court also noticed that the error of escaping certain documents from consideration was bonafide and thatwarranted to invoke the powers under Section 148 of the Act of1961. The view taken by the Court is conscious and as such thepetitioners, if are having any grievance, then the appropriatecourse is to avail the appropriate remedy but not the reviewjurisdictions. The applications seeking review of the order dated11.4.2017 hence are dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR) J. (GOVIND MATHUR) J. MathuriaKK/PS