2026 (1) TMI 1324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....817/2025 CM APPL 1559/2026 (delay of 54 days in re-filing review petition) in W.P.(C) 2819/2025 CM APPL 1561/2026 (delay of 54 days in re-filing review petition) in W.P.(C) 2820/2025 1. The present Applications have been filed by the Applicant / Review Petitions seeking condonation of delay of 54 days in re-filing the Review Petitions. 2. For the reasons stated in the Applications, the same are allowed. The delay of 54 days in re-filing the present Review Petitions is condoned. 3. The Applications stand disposed of. CM APPL 1554/2026 (delay of 236 days in filing review petition) in W.P.(C) 2816/2025 CM APPL 1555/2026 (delay of 181 days in filing review petition) in W.P.(C) 2817/2025 CM APPL 1557/2026 (delay of 236 da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nting the Revenue, a single opportunity to file its counter affidavit or to obtain instructions on the subject matter in controversy. The directions issued in the Judgement have resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice as the Revenue stands directed to process the returns by applying the CBDT circular that the assesses had cited, which require the returns to have been validly filed. However, the Judgement did not decide whether the returns filed by the assesses on 14.02.2018 were actually validly filed in the facts and circumstances of these cases. Accordingly, the directions issued vide the Judgement without deciding whether the returns were validly filed, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. 9. The learned Counsel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioners that this Court ought to have decided whether the returns were actually validly filed in the facts and circumstances of these cases, the Judgement clearly observes that the Review Petitioners shall process the returns in accordance with law. Accordingly, there was no error apparent on the face of the record by not deciding whether the returns were duly and validly filed before passing the Judgement as the direction given to the Review Petitioners provides that the returns shall be processed in accordance with law. The Judgement also records that if the time period for processing the return has expired, the return must be accepted at its face value. 13. It is settled law that the scope and ambit of review is very limited. The revi....