GROWMORE RESEARCH AND ASSETS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(BOM)-2020-6-115
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 09,2020

Growmore Research And Assets Management Limited Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By this order I dispose the above two Review Petitions. The petitions seek review of a common order dated 12th July, 2019 passed in Miscellaneous Applications no. 39 of 2017 and Miscellaneous Application no. 40 of 2017. By the two miscellaneous applications the applicants who are notified parties sought a direction against the income tax department to refund a sum of Rs.33.6 crores and Rs.4.09 crores respectively. The order of which review is sought rejected both these miscellaneous applications.
(2.) The review petitions are filed on the basis that there are mistakes of law and fact and that reliefs are to be granted to the review petitioners by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad S Mehta vs. Custodian [(1998) 5 SCC 1]. According to the review petitioners the revenue being the income tax department has violated directions of the Supreme Court contained in paragraph 39 of the judgment and have derived enormous benefit to the detriment of the two review petitioners. The Review Petitioners contend that in view of the directions contained in said paragraph 39 of the above judgment, this Court was bound, even belatedly to secure refund of the amount for the Review Petitioners.
(3.) The main ground for review is that the Review Petitioners are aggrieved by the findings which are rendered on the basis of the pleadings of the income tax department which had filed affidavit in the miscellaneous applications. Although the arguments of the Review petitioners were noted, the application and reliefs have been misread and misunderstood and the real issue did not get adjudicated due to the misleading averments in the replies filed by the revenue. According to Mr. Mehta this is a gross error on the face of the record and therefore he is entitled to seek review of the aforesaid order on the basis that the revenue made misleading submissions before the Court on behalf of the income tax department when the Court passed the order under review.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.