Patna High Court
Magadh Stock Exchange ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, ... on 11 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.6 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12043 of 2011
======================================================
1. Magadh Stock Exchange Association, 9th Floor, Ashiana Plaza, Bud Marg,
P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali in the town and District of Patna, Bihar through its
Director, Laxman Prasad, aged about 64 years, Male, Son of Late
Bishwanath Prasad, resident of 102, SLD Apartment, Kankarbagh Road,
Patna, P.O. Lohia Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna, Pin - 800020,
Bihar.
2. MAGADH STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION ARYA KUMAR ROAD
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, Beer Chand
Patel Path, Patna.
2. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, 3rd Floor,
Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. SC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 11-10-2023
The present civil review petition is filed for reviewing
the order dated 02.09.2020 passed in CWJC No. 12043 of 2011.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted
that in the absence of pleading this Court has proceeded to pass
order as if the petitioner has questioned the validity of Section 43B
of Income Tax Act, 1961 in CWJC No. 12043 of 2011. This issue
has not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, whatever the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.6 of 2021 dt.11-10-2023
observation in the order dated 02.09.2020 insofar as finding in
respect of challenge to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is
concerned, the same would not be a hurdle for the petitioner.
Further, whatever the finding given by this Court in respect of
challenge to Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 stands recalled.
3. Insofar as interference with the finding on the
impugned revision order dated 20.01.2011 for A.Y. 2006-2007
passed under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the
Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Patna, respondent no. 1 herein. It
is necessary to extract Para 15 of the order dated 02.09.2020,
which reads as under:-
"15. Hence on both counts, we
see no reason to accept the contentions of
the petitioner- (a) Constitutional validity
of the Act already stands affirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Exide Industries
Limited (supra). (b) On the second
submission, undisputedly, petitioner had
not deposited the amount deducted as STT
with the authorities, and it is not his case
that the same stood paid back/returned to
the person from whom it stood deducted.
It is the admitted case of the petitioner
that since the petitioner was adopting the
mercantile system of accounting; he was
not supposed to take any action. Even on
this count, given law discussed above,
more so Exide Industries Limited (supra).
(supra) and Mcdowell (supra), the orders
cannot be said to be perverse and illegal
warranting interference by this Court."
Patna High Court C. REV. No.6 of 2021 dt.11-10-2023
Later portion of the order in Para 15, i.e., (b)
insofar as challenge to the revision order dated 20.01.2011,
the same has been decided on factual aspects read with
judicial pronouncements. We find no infirmity or error
apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, we dismiss
the civil review petition, since there is no error insofar as
finding given by this Court in the order dated 02.09.2020.
Further scope of review petition is limited as held by the
Apex Court in the following decisions.
(a) S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan
and Ors. reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 185.
(b) Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales
Services Ltd. and Anr., 2023 Livelaw (SC) 506. (Para 14
to 17).
4. Accordingly, the present Civil Review petition stands
allowed in part.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Jyoti/abhishek
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date NA
