Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Katwa Udyog Ltd on 30 October, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REVIEW PETITION No.1625 OF 2013 (IT)
IN INCOME TAX APPEAL No.5002 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX,
FEROZ KHAIMJIBHAI COMPLEX,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
OPP. DISTRICT CIVIL HOSPITAL,
BELGAUM-590 001.
2. THE ACIT (INV)
CIRCLE-1, BELGAUM. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.)
AND:
M/S KATWA UDYOG LIMITED,
JYOTI TOWERS, M.VADAGAON,
BELGAUM, PAN AAACK8074H. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.K.GURUNATHAN, ADV.
AND SRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADV.)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 5 R/W. SECTION 151 OF CPC., PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 18.09.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.5002/2013 ON THE
FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH.
2
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, S.SUJATHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
We have heard the learned counsel, Sri.Y.V.Raviraj, appearing for the revenue as well as the learned counsel, Sri.V.K.Gurunathan, appearing for the respondent.
2. This review petition is preferred seeking review of the order passed by this Court in I.T.A. No.5002 of 2013 dated 18th September 2013. Learned counsel, Sri.Y.V.Raviraj, appearing for the appellant- revenue/petitioner contends that the judgment and order passed by this Court in I.T.A. No.5002 of 2013 is not in conformity with Section 194C(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'). Learned counsel made an endeavor to point out that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as this Court failed to consider the relevant aspect whether the assessee has made the payments to the 'person/contractor' to get exemption from deduction of tax.
3
3. Section 194C(3)(i) of the Act as it stood during the relevant assessment year provides that no deduction shall be made under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) from the amount of any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid to the account of, or to, the contractor or sub-contractor, if such sum does not exceed twenty thousand rupees. This Court as well as the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to misinterpret this provision in holding that no violation of Section 194C(3)(i) of the Act has been established and moreover it is a question of fact and not a question of law that has to be considered as a substantial question of law under Section 260A of the Act. Thus, the learned counsel seeks to review the order passed by this Court on these grounds.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would contend that the scope of review is limited. There is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the order passed by this Court. This Court after elaborately 4 analysing the material on record had given a finding that whether the assessee has failed to deduct T.D.S. from the careers to freight charges were paid by it in excess of `20,000/- in a particular transaction or in a sum of `50,000/- p.a. to a particular career, is a question of fact and not a question of law. These disputed questions of facts cannot be re-agitated like an appeal in the second round under the guise of review. Thus, the learned counsel seeks to dismiss the review petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. It is trite law that, the scope of the review is limited and it is not an appeal in disguise to argue the mater in the second round, re-agitating the issues already considered and decided. No error on the face of the record is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. If there is an error in the judgment, it is for the revenue to resort to the appropriate proceedings and not to seek for review. No 5 ground made out by the petitioners to review the order of this Court in ITA No.5002 of 2013 as sought for.
Review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sh