Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Shri Mukesh Sangla on 23 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 RP Nos.442/20, 443/20, 451/20, 469/20,
500/20, 502/20, 505/20, 513/20, 515/20
Review Petition No.442/2020
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhatia)
Review Petition No.443/2020
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhatia)
Review Petition No.451/2020
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. Amandeep Singh Bhatia)
Review Petition No.469/2020
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. Amandeep Singh Bhatia)
Review Petition No.500/2020
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Swan Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)
Review Petition No.502/2020
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Saurabh Sangla)
Review Petition No.505/2020
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Swan Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)
Review Petition No.513/2020
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. M/s Swan Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.)
Review Petition No.515/2020
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Mukesh Sangla)
Indore, Dated : 23.7.2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the review petitioners
submits that since similar singular ground has been taken in all the
review petitions seeking review of the orders, the matters may be
analogously heard on admission.
The reasonable prayer is accepted.
For the reasons stated in the IAs, all the applications for
condonation of delay are allowed. Delay is condoned.
(O R D E R)
1/ Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that
this Court on the basis of Circular No.3/2018 dated 20.8.2018 and
Circular dated 8.8.2019 opined that monetary limit was enhanced up
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
to Rs.1 Crore in respect of the High Court. A further clarificatory
SAN TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2021.07.23
18:00:18 IST
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
2 RP Nos.442/20, 443/20, 451/20, 469/20,
500/20, 502/20, 505/20, 513/20, 515/20
circular was issued on 6.9.2019 and Department has been
permitted, irrespective of valuation, to file an appeal on merits in
cases involved in organized tax evasion activity. In view of aforesaid,
learned counsel for the appellant prayed for and permitted to
withdraw the appeal.
2/ The review is prayed for in the teeth of Para 10(e) of the
Circular dated 20.8.2018, which reads as under:-
"10(e). Where addition is based on information received
from external sources in the nature of law enforcement
agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/ SFIO / Directorate
General of GST Intelligence (DGGI)."
3/ Ms. Mandlik, learned counsel for the review petitioners
submits that during the course of submission of scrutiny report
(obtained after the order under review passed by the High Court), it
was observed by the assessing officer i.e. ACIT, Indore that the
search and seizure operation was conducted by the Indore Tax
Department and DG, Central Excise Intelligence, Indore which
concluded that respondent is associated with Signet Group of Indore
and was involved in organized activities of tax evasion, which led ultimately the addition made by the AO. Thus, Clause 10(e) aforesaid is attracted.
4/ On more than one occasion, the Bench put a question to Ms. Mandlik when this scrutiny report was prepared and whether any such material in this regard is produced to show that such report falls within the ambit of Para-10(e) but no response is received by the Bench. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioners has not chosen to answer as to how the aforesaid falls within the ambit of review jurisdiction.
5/ This is trite that the power of review is limited. Unless it is shown that there exists an error apparent on the record or any other Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2021.07.23 18:00:18 IST HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 RP Nos.442/20, 443/20, 451/20, 469/20, 500/20, 502/20, 505/20, 513/20, 515/20 ingredients which are in consonance with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, interference in review jurisdiction cannot be made. Unfortunately no argument is advanced to bring the present matter within the ambit of principles analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In absence thereof, the question of exercising the review jurisdiction does not arise.
6/ The review petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
7/ Signed order be kept in the file of RP No.442/2020 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of RP Nos.443/20, 451/20, 469/20, 500/20, 502/20, 505/20, 513/20, 515/20.
(Sujoy Paul) (Shailendra Shukla)
Judge Judge
trilok/-
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2021.07.23
18:00:18 IST