Shri Chander Prakash Soni, F v. Additional Director Income Tax, Adit Unit 1(1) Aiu, Aaykar Bhavan, Kolkatta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR S. B. Civil Review Petition No. 113/2017 In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8900/2014 1. Shri Kamal Mohan Gupta, House No. 35, Sardar Singh Nagar,Agra Road, Village & Post Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur. 2. Shri Chander Prakash Soni, F-4, Tulsidas Marg, Brahampyri,Jaipur ----Petitioners/Non-ApplicantVersus 1. Additional Director Income Tax, Adit Unit 1(1) AIU, AaykarBhavan, Kolkatta. 2. Additional Director of Income Tax, Investigation 1, C-Scheme,Jaipur. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Statue Circle, C-Scheme,Jaipur 4. Income TA Officer, Ward-7 (3), NCRB, Jaipur ----Respondents/Applicants _____________________________________________________ For Review Petitioners-Respondents: Mr. Sameer Jain. For Non-applicants-Writ Petitioners: Mr. Gunjan Pathak. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Order 27/10/2017 This review petition has been filed seeking review/recallof order dated 23.02.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil WritPetition No. 8900/2014. Learned counsel for the review-petitioners/respondentshas argued that the order sought to be reviewed proceeds on thefooting that assessment proceedings of the writ petitioners werepending whereas the fact is that assessment order was alreadypassed and the assessee-petitioners had filed an appeal before CIT (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Learnedcounsel argued that this happened because originally writ petitionwas filed in the year 2014 and reply filed to originally filed writpetition was that the same was premature as the proceedings ofassessment were still pending, but subsequently writ petition wasamended by the writ petitioners after the assessment order wasframed, but this aspect of the matter escaped notice of this Courtwhile deciding the writ petition. It is, therefore, that this Courtwhile concluding the judgment directed the respondents-reviewpetitioners to complete the proceedings, if any, pending againstthe petitioners with immediate effect, upon the petitionersdemonstrating the source of seized assets or otherwise pass orderin accordance with law. Learned counsel for ther non-applicant/writ petitionersopposed the review petition and submitted that the fact thatwhether or not assessment order has been passed would notaffect the substantial relief which this court granted while passingthe judgment of which review is sought. This Court while passingthe judgment directed return of seized jewellery to petitioner No.1 on application made by petitioner No. 2 under Section 132B ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. Be that as it may, there appears to be truth in what hasbeen argued by learned counsel for the review petitioners thatjudgment was passed on the basis of pleadings of the parties inthe originally filed writ petition as the memorandum of amendedwrit petition was properly not placed in the file. Thus, thejudgment was not passed on the basis of amended writ petition and reply to amended writ petition, on the assumption thatassessment proceedings were pending and the same were yet tobe completed whereas the fact is that assessment proceedingswere completed and appeal against the assessment order wasfiled by the writ petitioners. What would be the effect of theassessment order and whether the relief with regard to return ofseized jewellery, which was granted will remain unaffectedthereby, will have to be considered after keeping that fact in view.However, this constituted an error apparent on the face of therecord, therefore, the order passed by this court deserves to bereviewed and recalled. In view of above, review petition is accordingly allowed.Order dated 23.02.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil WritPetition No. 8900/2014 is recalled and writ petition is revived tobe listed before the regular Bench on 06.11.2017. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. Manoj/32