Ravina & Associates Pvt. Limited & ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 3342 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              RP No. 364/2011 in WP(C) No. 328/2010

                                   Reserved on: 08th July, 2011
%                               Date of Decision: 14th July, 2011

Ravina & Associates Pvt. Limited & Anr.    ....Applicants
                 Through Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with
                            Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.

                   VERSUS

Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors ....Respondents
                Through Mr. Sanjiv Rajpal, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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 ?

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This is an application for review of the decision dated 20th April,

2011. It is filed by Ravina & Associates Private Limited, the writ

petitioner, who is hereinafter referred to as the applicant.

2. In paragraph 4 of the review application, it is stated that

inadvertent factual errors have occurred in the decision dated 20th

April, 2011, namely:

(a) The applicant had received Rs.111,72,52,695/- in the financial

years relevant to the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and not

Rs.108,39,46,971/- during assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07. The

figure of Rs.108,39,46,971/- represents the amount deposited in

Natwest Bank, London and remaining Rs.3,33,06,123/- was deposited in

the Deutsche Bank, New Delhi.

(b) In paragraph 12 of the decision dated 20th April, 2011, it is

mentioned that the date 6th March, 2006, when the FIR was registered

by the CBI has to be kept in mind, but this reasoning/finding is not

correct because the applicant was not under an obligation in law to

declare/disclose such receipt of Rs.93.80 crores deposited in the

Natwest Bank, London, received in the assessment year 2005-06, in the

income tax return prior to 6th March, 2006. In fact the due date for

filing of return for assessment year 2006-07 was 31st October, 2006 and

the return was filed on 12th February, 2007.

(c) The FIR is not in respect of receipt of Rs.14.58 crores in the

assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, which pertain to the Obra

project.

(d) M/s Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd. was not aware that an FIR was

registered on 6th March, 2006.

3. The figure of Rs.108,39,46,971/- is the amount which was

deposited in the Natwest Bank, London. Even if this amount along with

Rs.3,33,06,123/- was received during the financial years relevant to the

assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and not during the financial years

2004-05 to 2006-07, it does not make any difference to the final

decision/outcome. The figures and the details stated in paragraph 12 of

the decision are factually correct.

4. The return for the assessment year 2006-07 was filed on 12th

February, 2007, i.e. after FIR was registered on 6th March, 2006. By that

time CBI was aware of the deposit in Natwest Bank, London. Other

aspects as raised cannot be regarded as factual errors. The applicant

had raised contentions, which were examined but rejected.

5. In paragraph 5 of the review Application, the applicant has

alleged that following contentions have been overlooked:-

(a) There is no investigation in respect of the Obra project.

(b) Allegations of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act

are figment of imagination as the project was reviewed by the

Government of India.

(c) Income Tax Department had filed an application for release of

the funds in the Natwest Bank but the said application was rejected and

a revision petition filed by the Income tax Department is pending.

There is a restraint order and the applicant cannot pay the taxes and

should not be coerced and compelled to pay the Income Tax

Department. The State cannot act unreasonably.

(d) Deposits in the Natwest Bank represents payments received for

services rendered by the applicant and this cannot be overlooked.

6. The aforesaid contentions have not been overlooked and were in

mind of the court but were rejected for the reasoning given in the order

specially in paragraphs 16 to 18. The applicant's is seeking the rehearing

of the entire matter in the garb of review. This is not permissible. The

review Application has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE

Sd/-

( DIPAK MISRA ) CHIEF JUSTICE July 14th, 2011 kkb