Ibashisha Rynjah v. Union of India and 9 Ors

Serial No.03 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Review Pet.No.8/2024 Date of Order: 04.12.2024 Smt. Ibashisha Rynjah ..... Petitioner Vs.

¶1Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Dept., New Delhi.

¶2The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Dept., Shillong-793001, Meghalaya.

¶3The Income Tax Officer, ITO W-1, O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong-7930001, Meghalaya.

¶4The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong.

¶5The Superintendent of Police (city), Govt. of Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.

¶6The Officer-in-charge cum Investigating Officer, Laitumkhrah Police Station, Shillong, Meghalaya.

¶7The Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Shillong, P.B.No.25, Police Bazar, G.S. Road, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793001.

¶8The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Motinagar Branch, Shillong.

¶9Mr. Nirmalya Das Gupta, Newline Laitumkhrah, Opposite Laitumkhrah Presbyterian Church, Shillong-793002.

¶10Nitya Paul, Ka Phran Mawrie Complex, Laitumkhrah main road, near Beat House, Shillong-793003.

..... Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner : Ms. S. Parueen, Adv For the Respondents : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. K. Gurung, Adv Mr. N. Syngkon, GA with Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA

i) Whether approved for reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral) This is an application for review of our judgment and order dated 26th November, 2024. Ms. S. Parueen, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents including the Income-tax department have been duly served. Such submission is accepted. It appears that there is a mistake in recording some facts urged by learned counsel, in the said judgment and order. At pages 4 and 5 of that judgment and order, it has been recorded that the applicant had filed an application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and that without her consent, it was withdrawn by the respondent No.9. Learned counsel submits that opposite is the case. The fact, as averred in the petition, is that the Section 264 application of her client was filed by the respondent No.9 without her permission and that having realised so, she withdrew it. Considering this mistake and the facts and circumstances of this case, we review our judgment and order dated 26th November, 2024 by modifying it to the extent that the applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh Section 264 application within three weeks from date. That application if filed would be considered by condoning the delay, if any and disposed of in accordance with the directions in the said judgment and order dated 26th November, 2024. This application for review is accordingly disposed of.

(W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji) Judge Chief Justice

Date: 2024.12.04 16:31:51 IST