2000 (9) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Court dismisses review petitions, finds no error in common order. Stay granted for 15 days. Parties to bear own costs.

Khamruddin. Versus N. Tahir Ahmed And Others.

Khamruddin. Versus N. Tahir Ahmed And Others. - [2001] 252 ITR 364, 172 CTR 387, 122 TAXMANN 299 Issues Involved1. Review of the common order dated March 22, 2000, dismissing two revision petitions under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.2. Jurisdiction of the trial court in light of Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530.4. Conduct of the petitioners' legal representatives and their advocates.5. Grounds for review under Order 47, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.Detailed Analysis1. Review of the Common Order Dated March 22, 2000The petitioners sought a review of the common order dated March 22, 2000, which dismissed their revision petitions under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The revision petitions were filed against the trial court's order directing the issuance of a delivery warrant in execution proceedings related to a decree for specific performance of a contract.2. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court in Light of Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961The petitioners contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit due to the provisions of Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which came into force in Bangalore on October 1, 1987. The trial court's decree was argued to be a nullity because the agreement to sell was executed on April 2, 1987, prior to the enforcement of Chapter XXC. The court held that the agreement was not subject to Chapter XXC because the consideration amount was less than Rs.10,00,000, as per rule 48K of the Income-tax Rules.3. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530The petitioners argued that the court ignored the Supreme Court's decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, which required the Appropriate Authority to notify and hear the parties before making an order under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act if the apparent consideration was less than the fair market value. The court found that this decision was not brought to its notice during the hearing and was not applicable to the present case because the consideration amount did not exceed Rs.10,00,000.4. Conduct of the Petitioners' Legal Representatives and Their AdvocatesThe respondent's counsel raised an objection regarding the conduct of the petitioners' legal representatives in changing their advocate without obtaining a 'no objection certificate' from the previous advocate. The court noted that such practices should be discouraged but did not dwell on this point elaborately due to subsequent developments, including the previous advocate filing a memo stating no objection to the new advocates' appearance.5. Grounds for Review Under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure CodeThe court emphasized that a review is permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The court found no such mistake or error in the common order dated March 22, 2000. The court reiterated that even if the order was erroneous, it could not be corrected under the guise of a review. The court concluded that the petitions failed to establish grounds for review and dismissed them.ConclusionThe petitions for review were dismissed as the court found no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the common order dated March 22, 2000. The court also stayed the operation of the order for 15 days, with no further extensions to be granted. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.