Dismissed

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Kota Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd.

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2020CRW/9/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition against an Income Tax Appeal order was dismissed. The court held the petition was barred by limitation and the reasons for delay unaccepted. It further opined that since the Tribunal allowed deduction under Section 80P, the issue under Section 36(1)(viia) did not arise, and the petition sought an impermissible re-hearing.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed as barred by limitation and for lack of merit.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Kota Sahakari Bhoomi… — Income Tax | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 9/2019

¶3

¶4

D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.17/2018

¶5

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kota.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Kota Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Plot No. 3, Behind Income Tax Office, Rawatbhata Road, Kota- 324009.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Yadav

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

02/01/2020

¶14

This review petition preferred by the petitioner is reported to be barred by limitation for 241 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶15

The reasons assigned for inordinate delay in filing the review petition are not plausible and acceptable and therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed.

¶16

However, we have examined the review petition on merits as well.

¶17

Admittedly, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), the contention of the assessee was that it is entitled for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). It is not disputed that the petitioner was allowed deduction

¶18

(2 of 2) [CRW-9/2019]

¶19

under Section 80P of the Act and therefore, the alternative plea sought to be raised regarding entitlement for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, was not considered by the Tribunal.

¶20

In our considered opinion, the Tribunal having accepted the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80P, the question with regard to entitlement for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia), was not required to be gone into.

¶21

As a matter of fact, by way of review petition, the petitioner wants re-hearing of the matter, which cannot be countenanced by this Court.

¶22

The review petition is absolutely devoid of any merit and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶23

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶24

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶25

VIJYANT SHARMA /31

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Kota Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Kota Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs M/S Jammu Metallic Oxides Pvt. Ltd.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs M/S Jammu Metallic Oxides Pvt. Ltd.