Review petition

 It is impermissible in a review petition for an assessee to re-argue and re-agitate the issues/questions which have been already considered and decided by the High Court, as held by DelHC in Ravina Khurana v CIT — In favour of: The revenue; RP No 358/2011 in WP (C) No 340/2010.

Ravina Khurana v CIT

High Court of Delhi

RP No. 358/2011 in WP(C) No. 340/2010

Dipak Misra, CJ and Sanjiv Khanna, J

 

Decided on: 14 July 2011

Counsel appeared:

Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. for the appellant

Mr. Sanjiv Rajpal, Adv. for the respondent

Judgment

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that inadvertent factual errors have occurred in the

decision dated 20th April, 2011 and these have been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the review

application. The errors pointed out are :-

(a) In the original returns for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2004- 05, the applicant Ravina

Khurana had not included income earned outside India and deposited in the Bank Account

maintained with Natwest Bank, London, but this was because the applicant was not aware of

the liability to pay tax in India on the said amount. However, the applicant subsequently

voluntarily vide intimations dated 1st April, 2006 and 11th April, 2006, informed the

authorities about her tax liability.

(b) The FIR was not registered against the applicant - Ravina Khurana but is in respect of

Rs.97,13,86,901/- received and deposited in Natwest Bank, by Ravina & Associates Pvt.

Limited.

(c) Ravina Khurana had no knowledge about the FIR registered on 6th March, 2006, till she

received the fax dated 2nd May, 2006 from Central Confiscation Branch, Crown Prosecution

Service, London, and therefore, the declaration/surrender made was voluntarily.

2. The aforesaid averments are contentions made by the applicant in support of her case. The factual matrix relating to the applicant Ravina Khurana, has been separately noticed in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the decision dated 20th April, 2011. The factual matrix relating to the company Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd., has been separately referred to in paragraph 3 to 12. FIR registered by the CBI on 6th March, 2006, has been referred to in paragraphs 7 to 11 while discussing factual matrix in the case of Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd. While discussing the factual matrix in the case of Ravina Khurana in paragraph 13, it is recorded as under:-

"13. As noticed above, the criminal complaint was registered and investigation was

started by the CBI on 6th March, 2006 and thereafter the letter of rogatory was issued

by the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi. Information was received that in addition to bank

accounts of Ravina and Associates Private Limited in NatWest Bank, London, Ravina

Khurana has a personal account in the same bank."

3. It is, therefore, clear that there was no confusion or doubt in the mind of the Court that the FIR has not been registered in respect of the personal account of Ravina Khurana in Natwest Bank. Ravina Khurana is a Director in Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd.

4. Paragraphs 16 to 18 record findings to decide the issues raised and answered (1) whether or not

income tax demand should be stayed; (2) In the alternative, the outstanding demand should be

recovered from the accounts of Ravina Khurana, in Natwest Bank, London. Paragraph 4 of the

application has no merit.

5. In paragraph 5 of the application, it is stated that the following contentions of the applicant have not been considered or dealt with in the order dated 20th April, 2011.

(i) In FIR, there is no allegation against Ravina Khurana.

(ii) The allegation of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is based on

figment of imagination.

(iii) The Income Tax Department had itself applied for release of money from Natwest Bank

account but the said request was rejected and a Revision Petition filed by the Income Tax

Department is pending before this Court.

(iv) The money lying in the Natwest Bank which belongs to the applicant, has been put under

a restraint by the Special Judge, CBI and this money belongs to the applicant, who is not even

an accused in the FIR.

(v) The restraint order is pursuant to the act/direction of the State and, therefore, recovery

should not be made as it causes prejudice and harassment to the applicant. It is highly

detrimental and unfair to ask the applicant to clear the tax demand and at the same time, she is

not allowed/permitted to pay the same because of the attachment/restraint order.

(vi) There is evidence that the applicant had provided services and was paid for the services

by the foreign/Russian parties and the money received in the Natwest Bank was on that

account.

6. This Court was conscious of the said contentions including restraint order passed by the Special

Judge, CBI, and the revision petition filed by the Income Tax Department. It was in these

circumstances, reasons and findings were given in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the decision dated 20th

April, 2011. The contentions were rejected.

7. The applicant wants to reargue and re-agitate the issues/questions which have been considered and decided by this Court in the decision dated 20th April, 2011. This is not permissible. The review

application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.