M/S. I.G.Petrochemicals Ltd vs The Asst Commissioner Of Income ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 886 Kant

                          1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                       PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                         AND

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

           REVIEW PETITION NO.324 OF 2022

            IN ITA NO.219-220/2011 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

M/S. I.G. PETROCHEMICALS LTD
D-4, JYOTHI COMPLEX,
134/1, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI NIKUNJ DHANUKA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
SON OF SRI S.S. DHANUKA.
                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI A. GANESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE &
    SRI CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-11(4), C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
                                         ...RESPONDENT
                                  2



                                ---
     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT DATED 04/08/2021 IN ITA NO. 219/2011 FOR
THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-2006 AND 2006-2007;
CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER MADE IN
THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AS WELL AS IN QUESTION
NOS.(a) AND (b) OF THE INCOME TAX APPEAL U/S 260A OF
THE ACT (ITA NO. 219/2011 FOR AYS 2005-2006 AND 2006-
2007) AND MAY PASS A SPEAKING ORDER WITH REGARD TO
THE SAME.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Mr. A Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel for the Mr.

S.Parthasarathi, learned counsel and Miss Junitha Chatterjee,

learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that the judgment dated 4.08.2021 passed

by this Court in I.T.A. No.219/2011 is already been assailed

by the appellant in SLP (C) No.000660-000661/2022 had

issued notice on 31.01.2022.

3. It is further submitted that the controversy

involved in this review petition is squarely covered by the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra

Ltd.' (2018) 404 ITR 0001 (SC).

4. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion

that, the impugned Judgment neither suffers from

jurisdictional infirmity nor from any error apparent on the

face of the record to warrant interference of this Court in

exercise of review jurisdiction.

5. In the result, the review petition fails and is

hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR