The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Panaji Goa v. M/S Auto Mobile Corporation Of Goa Ltd.,Sattari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 26 OF 2010INTAX APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2004 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PANAJI GOA. VersusM/S AUTO MOBILE CORPORATION OF GOA LTD.,SATTARI ... Applicant ... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Junior Standing Counsel for the Applicant.Shri J. Supekar, Advocate for the Respondent. -Coram:F. M. REIS &NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.-Date:29th March, 2017 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The above petition seeks for review of the order dated 25/08/2010 whereby the appeal preferred by theapplicant/Revenue came to be disposed off in view of thejudgment reported in 2005 (5) Bom.C.R. 41 in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax V/s. Pithwa Engineer Works, onthe assumption that the tax effect was below Rs.2.00 lakhs ascovered by the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The said order was passed on the concession by the learnedCounsel appearing for the Revenue that the tax effect was below the limit prescribed in the said circular. 3. The applicant filed the above review petition essentially onthe ground that the statement of the concession of the learnedCounsel was not correct as according to the applicant, the taxeffect was much more than the amount fixed in the said circularas according to them the recurring consequences in terms of para3 (clauses c and d) of the circular were not considered when suchconcession was given by the learned Counsel. The applicationfor review came to be dismissed by oral order dated 28/03/2012essentially on the ground that review was not maintainable in anappeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Theapplicant/Revenue preferred Special Leave Petition before theApex Court which came to be allowed by judgment dated12/08/2016 whereby the said oral order passed by this Court wasquashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to decide thereview petition afresh. 4. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, ShriSupekar the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent pointsout that the appeal itself would not be maintainable in view ofthe subsequent circular issued by the Central Board of DirectTaxes dated 10/09/2015. The learned Counsel has also placed onrecord the calculations to point out that the claim of the applicantof notional recurring taxes would not at all be attracted in the present case. The learned Counsel appearing for theapplicant/Revenue however disputes the said contention andaccording to the learned Counsel the tax effect involved in theabove appeal is much more than the amount of Rs.20.00 lakhsand, as such, the matter has to be examined. We do not intend toexamine the said rival contentions as this aspect would have tobe considered only after the above review petition is examinedand decided by this Court. The order under review admittedly isnot on the basis of the subsequent circular which came into forceonly in December, 2015 but on the basis of the circular whichwas issued in the year 2008. 5. As such, as the appeal preferred by the applicant/Revenuewas disposed off based on the concession of the learned Counsel,which apparently is alleged to be a misappreciation of therelevant position of law at the relevant time, we find that there isan error apparent on the face of record which would call forreview of the order dated 25/08/2010. 6. In view of the above, we pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The application for review is granted. (ii) The order dated 25/08/2010 stands reviewed and the TaxAppeal is placed on the board of final hearing. (iii) Needless to say all the contentions of the respondent onmerits as well as the contention that the appeal cannot proceed inview of the subsequent circular of the year 2015 of the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes are left open. (iv) Review application stands disposed off accordingly. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. NH F. M. REIS, J.