Sushil Kumar Purohit v. Union Of Inida, Through Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle,Jaipur (Raj.).Central, New Central Revenue Building, Stat

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 196/2018 In D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1124/2009 Sushil Kumar Purohit, C/o B.c. Purohit And Company, CommerceHouse, Room No. 5, 2Nd Floor, 2-Ganesh Chandra Avenue,Kolkata. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of Inida, Through Commissioner Of Income TaxCentral, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle,Jaipur (Raj.).Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle,Jaipur (Raj.). 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, New CentralRevenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Principal Bench,Khan Market, New Delhi Through The SecretaryKhan Market, New Delhi Through The Secretary ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarvesh Jain with Ms. Kriti Kalavatiya For Respondent(s): Mr. Gunjan Pathak Mr. Kanishk Singhal Mr. Kanishk Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAROrder 08/04/2024 This review petition has been filed by the petitioner forrecalling of the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by this Court. The relevant para No.8 of the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by this Court reads as under:- “8. In our consideredopinion, the appeal deservesto be allowed. As theassessee was never assessedat Jaipur, hence, the orderpassed by the learned SingleJudge deserves to bequashed and set aside forwant of jurisdiction. If at all,opinion, the appeal deservesto be allowed. As theassessee was never assessedat Jaipur, hence, the orderpassed by the learned SingleJudge deserves to bequashed and set aside forwant of jurisdiction. If at all, the department wants toinitiate any proceedings, itwill be open for them toinitiatetheproceedingsbefore the Calcutta HighCourt which has jurisdictionin the matter.” Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the order dated 05.07.2017 passedby this Court, in our considered view, no case is made out torecall/review of the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by this Court,as this Court has already given liberty to the review petitioner toinitiate the proceedings before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. We are not satisfied with the reasons given by the reviewpetitioner in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Actfor condonation of delay, therefore, the application under Section5 of the Limitation Act as well as the review petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /73