Karnataka High Court
M/S Seva Sadan Convent, vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, on 11 July, 2017
Bench: Jayant M Patel, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
(MATTER PERTAINING TO DHARWAD BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO.100077/2016(T-IT)
IN
ITA NO.100065/2015
C/W
REVIEW PETITION NO.100078/2016
IN
ITA NO.100066/2015
IN RP NO.100077/2016:
BETWEEN:
M/S.SEVA SADAN CONVENT,
K.H.B. COLONY,
M.I.G. 257, 5TH CROSS,
MUDDEBIHAL - 5862012
BIJAPUR, PREVIOUSLY
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHOR,
SR.CELINE MENDONCA,
AGED 64 YRS,
D/O MR.ROSARIO MENDONCA
SUPERIOR, PRESENTLY,
2
SR.SARITA SOUZA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
D/O LADINE D'SOUZA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.K.GURUNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BELGAUM - 590 001.
...RESPONDENT
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DTD: 17.02.2016 PASSED IN THE ITA
NO.100065/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
IN RP NO.100078/2016:
BETWEEN:
M/S. SPOORTHI SADAN CONVENT,
NEAR ANJUMAN COLLEGE,
HUNASAGI ROAD,
TALLIKOTI - 586214,
DIST.BIJAPUR, PREVIOUSLY
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHOR,
SR.CELINE MENDONCA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
D/O MR.ROSARIO MENDONCA
3
SUPERIOR, PRESENTLY
SR.ELIZABETH KURIAKOSE,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
D/O KURIAKOSE MAMPALLY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.K.GURUNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BELGAUM - 590001.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-2, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DTD: 17.02.2016 PASSED IN THE ITA
NO.100066/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COUR
OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
ALONG WITH I.A.I/16 THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J.,
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
As such, in both the matters, there is delay in preferring the review petitions. Even if a lenient view is taken on the aspects of delay, in order to see that the merits may not be frustrated, we have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the merits of the review petition.
2. All grounds sought to be canvassed in the review petitions are the grounds which may be available in the appeal against the order of this Court. No error apparent on the face of the record has been satisfactorily demonstrated.
3. Under the circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the review petitions.
4. As there is no merit in the review petitions, even if delay is condoned, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. Hence, delay is condoned. 5
5. Accordingly, Review Petitions as well as I.As shall stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sk/-