Surendra Pal Singh Sahni S/O Late ... vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 5074 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

           D.B. Civil Review Petition (Writ) No. 84/2022

                                       In

             D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 810/2021

Surendra Pal Singh Sahni S/o Late Rajendra Singh, Aged About
63 Years, Resident Of Rubber Factory Road, Rajendra Vila, Kota
Junction, Kota (Rajasthan).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Union Of India, Through Principal Commissioner Of
       Income Tax (Central), Rajasthan, Room No. 402, IVth
       Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-II, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar
       Circle, Jaipur-302005.
2.     Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Range,
       Udaipur, Second Floor, Moomal Tower, 16, Saheli Marg,
       Udaipur, (Rajasthan).
3.     Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota
       (Rajasthan)
4.     ACIT, Central Circle, Revenue Building, CAD Circle, Kota.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Advocate with Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Judgment

25/07/2022

Heard on prayer for review and recall of order dated

21.01.2022 passed by the Division Bench in the matter of

challenge to initiation of proceedings of assessment and alleged

denial of material documents.

(2 of 3) [WRW-84/2022]

Learned counsel for the review petitioner, relying upon the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Himansu

Kumar Bose Versus Jyoti Prokash Mitter in AIR 1964 SC

1636, Union of India & Anr. Versus S.P. Anand & Ors. in

(1998) 6 SCC 466 and Delhi Administration Versus Gurdip

Singh Uban & Ors. in (2000) 7 SCC 296, would submit that

once the notices were issued requiring the respondents to file

reply, meaning thereby that the Court was prima facie satisfied

that an arguable case is made out, dismissal of the appeal on the

next date without awaiting the service of notice on respondents

amounted to recall of notice of admission. He would argue that in

such a situation, only after service of notice, if reply was filed or

the reply was not filed, the Court could proceed to pass such an

order as a consequence.

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that

irrespective of the objections which have been taken to the

dismissal of the appeal before service of notice at the admission

stage, it is argued that otherwise also on merits the review

petitioner does not have a strong case which was noticed by the

Bench and, therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed on merits.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Three

decisions, which have been cited before this Court namely

Himansu Kumar Bose Versus Jyoti Prokash Mitter (supra),

Union of India & Anr. Versus S.P. Anand & Ors. (supra) and

Delhi Administration Versus Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors.

(supra), supports the case of the review petitioner on the

submission which has been made by learned counsel for the

review-petitioner. On facts, present is a case when the case was

heard on admission and the Bench hearing the case having found

(3 of 3) [WRW-84/2022]

that it was an arguable issue, issued notices in the nature of rule,

required the respondents to file reply. Further from the record it is

revealed that the notices were not served and they are still

awaited. In such a situation, when the case was again listed, in

our opinion, the view which has been taken in the aforesaid

judgments requires the matter to be considered after appearance

of the respondents.

Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents

on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ram Sahu

(Dead) through Lrs and Others Versus Vinod Kumar Rawat

and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 896, is misconceived in law.

The ground, on which the review has been sought, certainly

makes out a case for review and recall of the order on the grounds

which have been heard particularly when they are supported by as

many as three decisions, if not more, on the issue.

In the result, the review petition is allowed. Order dated

21.01.2022 is recalled and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.

810/2021 is restored to its original number for decision on merits.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /50

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)