The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii,Member, Appropriate Authority,Ahmedabad v. Subhash Samudayik Sahakari Shetkari Sangh Ltd., & Ors

Trupti 6-cra-393-1.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-III,Member, Appropriate Authority,Ahmedabad ...Applicant Versus Subhash Samudayik Sahakari Shetkari Sangh Ltd., & Ors. …... ...Respondents Mr.Sham Walve for the Applicant.Mr. Vishal C. Ghosalkar for Respondent No.1. …... CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED:JULY 02, 2018 P.C. : 1.This Civil Revision Application is directed against the orderdated 16[th] September, 2011 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge,S.D., Pune- On Deputation, (4[th] Additional Judge) below exhibit 85in Regular Civil Suit No. 4629 of 2000. 2.The applicant i.e., defendant no.3- The Commissioner ofIncome Tax-III, Ahmedabad has filed an application for rejection of Trupti 6-cra-393-1.doc the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the C.P.C”.) on the ground that astatutory notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. has not been givenby the original plaintiff/ respondent no.1 and also on the groundthat the suit was beyond limitation. There is no cause of actionagainst defendant no.3. The learned Judge of the trial Court hasturned down all these objections and rejected the applicationbelow exhibit 85. Hence, this Civil Revision Application. 3.The original plaintiff i.e., respondent No.1 is a land owner ofthe suit land and lease the suit land in favour of defendant No.1i.e., respondent No.3, who has further assigned the developmentright in favour of defendant No.2 i.e., respondent No.4. However,the original plaintiff has terminated the lease and filed a suit forpossession against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and also againstdefendant No.3. i.e., the present applicant. It is the case of theoriginal plaintiff that in between, defendant No.3 has issued anotice under Section 269 UD (I) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 andseized the suit property, as it was action taken against defendantNo.2. Trupti 6-cra-393-1.doc 4.The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the saidaction was challenged by defendant No.2 in Writ Petition No.1889of 1995 and Division Bench of this Court by order dated 4[th] August,2014 allowed the said Petition and held that action taken underSection 269 UD of the Income Tax Act was illegal and devoid ofmerits. Thus, the Income Tax Department is out of this transaction.He further submits that as on today, there is no cause of actionagainst the Union of India, Income Tax Department and, therefore,the proceedings against the applicant is to be dropped. 5.The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that theapplicant should make statement that they will not file anyproceeding challenging the order dated 4[th] August, 2014 passed byDivision Bench of this Court. 6.The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that theapplicant will not file any proceeding challenging the order dated4[th] August, 2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court before theApex Court. Trupti 6-cra-393-1.doc 7.Heard submissions. In view of the above submissions, I setaside the order dated 16[th] September, 2011 passed by the learnedJt. Civil Judge, S.D., Pune- On Deputation, (4[th] Additional Judge)on the ground that there is no cause of action against the applicantin the suit in view of the order dated 4[th] August, 2014 passed byDivision Bench of this Court. 8.Hence, Civil Revision Application is allowed. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)