Delhi High Court
Rahuljee & Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal-I & ... on 14 January, 2011
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REVIEW PETITION 96/2010
&
CM APPL. 2739/2010 IN W.P. (C) 7792/2008
% Reserved on: December 3, 2010
Delivered on: January 14,2011
RAHULJEE & COMPANY PVT. LTD. . . . Petitioner
Through : Mr. P.L. Juneja, Advocate
VERSUS
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-I & ORS. . . .Respondent
Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
CM APPL. 2739/2010 (Condonation of delay)
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the Review
Petition. It is stated in the application that the Chairman/Managing Director
of the review petitioner/assessee had developed severe heart trouble in the
last week of January, 2010 and because of which he could not attend the
company work and was admitted in the hospital on 9th February, 2010 and
was discharged on 18th February, 2010. Medical certificates are enclosed
alongwith the application.
2. No reply to this application is filed at the time of hearing. There was no
opposition to this application either. We, therefore, condone the delay
treating the reasons stated in the application as sufficient cause.
3. Application stands disposed of.
REVIEW PETITION 96/2010
4. By means of this petition, the review petitioner (hereinafter referred to
as the 'assessee') seeks review and recall of order dated 23rd December,
2009. The Writ Petition (C) 7792/2008 was dismissed solely on the ground
that the petitioners have an equally efficacious remedy by way of an appeal
and, therefore, remedy of writ petition was not available.
5. We may point out that the assessee herein had challenged the order of
the Assessing Officer by filing appeal before the CIT (A). Challenging that
order the assessee had approached the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal by
filing second appeal. This appeal was partly allowed vide orders dated 17 th
September, 1990. The challenge of the assessee was on many counts but
we are concerned only with the following:-
(i) Payments made to one Mr. Sunil Kumar in the sum of ` 2
lacs which the assessee had claimed as deduction but was
disallowed.
(ii) Expenses of ` 80,000/- incurred by the assessee which
was disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
(iii) Consequently deduction of interest under Section 217 of
the Act. The Tribunal had allowed the expenses of `
80,000/- but rejected the claim of ` 2 lacs.
6. The assessee filed rectification application before the Tribunal seeking
rectification of aforesaid order dated 17th September, 1990. This application
remained pending for number of years and was finally dismissed on 24th
February, 2006. The assessee moved another rectification application on
10th March, 2006 which was also dismissed on 15th September, 2006 as not
maintainable. It is at this stage challenging the orders dated 17th September,
1990 passed in the appeal and orders dated 24th February, 2006 passed in
rectification application that the assessee preferred the instant writ petition.
Holding that the assessee had efficacious remedy of filing appeal under
Section 260A of the Act, writ petition was dismissed vide orders dated 23 rd
December, 2009.
7. Mr. Juneja, learned counsel appearing for the assessee had made
detailed submissions questioning the decision of the Tribunal in not allowing
the deduction of ` 2 lacs under Section 217 of the Act. His submission was
that it amounted to double taxation and in these circumstances, alternate
remedy was no bar to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. It is not necessary to go into all these aspects. We feel that the
assessee has arguable case in so far as challenge to the decision of the
Tribunal is concerned. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that in
the interest of justice, proper course of action would be to treat this writ
petition as appeal under Section 260A of the Act. Various submissions made
by Mr. Juneja on merits can be considered once this embargo is over.
9. We, thus, allow the review petition on the aforesaid ground, recall our
orders dated 23rd December, 2009 and allow the writ petition to be
converted into appeal. The Registry shall assign proper appeal number and
matter be listed before the Regular Bench on 17th January, 2011.
10. This Review Petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL)
JUDGE
January 14, 2011
skb
