Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Awadesh Pratap Singh
[Citation -2019-LL-0712-87]

Citation 2019-LL-0712-87
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name Awadesh Pratap Singh
Court HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 12/07/2019
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags restoration of appeal • review of earlier order • non prosecution
Bot Summary: ITA No.312/Agra/2014 was preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.08.2014 for A.Y. 2010-2011 by the CIT(A). On 27.07.2017 the Tribunal dismissed the same on account of non-appearance. It reserved the right of the appellant/assessee o revive the same by showing sufficient cause. The Tribunal being satisfied with the sufficiency of cause which prevented the appellant to appear on 27.07.2017 restored the appeal by order dated 27.07.2017, which the Revenue claims as void abinitio because of bar of Sub-section of Section 254 of the Act, treating the order to be a Review order. This principle is culled out from Order 47 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus unless there is a judgment of which a re- examination is embarked upon, it cannot be said that the order is a 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH I.T.A.No. In the case at hand an appeal being dismissed in default with reserving the right to revive, when revived will not tantamount to be review.


THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH I.T.A.No.55/2019 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Awadesh Pratap Singh) Gwalior, Dated:-12.07.2019 Mr. D.P.S. Bhadouria, learned counsel for appellant. issue which arises for consideration is whether restoration of appeal, which was dismissed for want of prosecution would tantamount to review as would attract Sub-section (3) of Section 254 of Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.312/Agra/2014 was preferred by assessee against order dated 07.08.2014 for A.Y. 2010-2011 by CIT(A). On 27.07.2017 Tribunal dismissed same on account of non-appearance. However, it reserved right of appellant/assessee o revive same by showing sufficient cause. Tribunal being satisfied with sufficiency of cause which prevented appellant to appear on 27.07.2017 restored appeal by order dated 27.07.2017, which Revenue claims as void abinitio because of bar of Sub-section (3) of Section 254 of Act, treating order to be Review order. Trite it is that Review is process under which Court in certain circumstances can reconsider its own judgment; general survey or re-examination; retrospection survey of past action etc. This principle is culled out from Order 47 Rule 1(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus unless there is judgment of which re- examination is embarked upon, it cannot be said that order is 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH I.T.A.No.55/2019 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Awadesh Pratap Singh) review order. In case at hand appeal being dismissed in default with reserving right to revive, when revived will not tantamount to be review. In view whereof, we do not perceive any substantial question arising in matter. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. (Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal) Judge Judge bj/- BARKHA JHA Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Awadesh Pratap Singh
Report Error