Facts of the Case

A batch of writ petitions was filed by Bechtel Limited and Bechtel Power Corporation challenging actions of the Income Tax Department in relation to processing of income tax returns. The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions vide judgment dated 27.03.2025, directing the Revenue authorities to process the returns in accordance with law, including applicable CBDT circulars, and clarifying that where the statutory time limit for processing had expired, the returns were to be accepted at face value.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Revenue filed review petitions along with applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the review petitions. The delays ranging from 54 days to 236 days were condoned by the Court.

Issues Involved

Whether the judgment dated 27.03.2025 suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, whether the writ petitions were allowed without granting the Revenue adequate opportunity to file counter affidavits, and whether the Court erred in not deciding the validity of the returns filed by the assessees before issuing directions to process the same.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Revenue contended that the judgment suffered from a mistake of law as the writ petitions were allowed without granting the Revenue an opportunity to file counter affidavits or obtain instructions. It was further argued that the Court issued directions to process the returns by applying CBDT circulars without first deciding whether the returns filed by the assessees on 14.02.2018 were validly filed. According to the Revenue, failure to decide this foundational issue constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. Reliance was placed on a coordinate bench decision in National Sewing Thread Company Ltd. where a judgment was recalled on similar grounds.

Respondent’s Arguments

The assessees opposed the review petitions and submitted that the Revenue was duly represented through counsel at the time of hearing of the writ petitions and was granted full opportunity of oral hearing. It was argued that the judgment clearly directed the Revenue to process the returns in accordance with law and did not preclude the Department from examining the validity of the returns during processing. It was further contended that the review petitions amounted to re-arguing the writ petitions, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court observed that the Revenue was represented by counsel at the time of hearing of the writ petitions and had been granted adequate opportunity to address the Court. Accordingly, the contention that no opportunity was granted to the Revenue was rejected. The Court distinguished the decision in National Sewing Thread Company Ltd. on the ground that in that case no appearance had been entered on behalf of the respondents at the time of passing of the judgment.

On the second contention, the Court held that the judgment dated 27.03.2025 specifically directed the Revenue to process the returns in accordance with law. The Court clarified that this necessarily included examination of whether the returns were validly filed. The Court further observed that the judgment also recorded that if the statutory time limit for processing had expired, the returns must be accepted at face value, which was consistent with the applicable legal framework.

The Court reiterated the settled principle that the scope of review is extremely limited and is confined to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record. Review proceedings cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to substitute a view already taken. As no error apparent or new material was shown, no case for review was made out.

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that review jurisdiction does not permit re-agitation of issues already considered and decided. Directions to process returns “in accordance with law” inherently preserve the authority of the Revenue to examine all statutory requirements, including validity of returns, during such processing.

Final Outcome

All the review petitions filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The judgment dated 27.03.2025 allowing the writ petitions and directing processing of returns in accordance with law was upheld. All connected applications were disposed of, and no interference was found warranted in review jurisdiction.

 

Link to download order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769503843_BECHTELLIMITEDVsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXCIRCLE112NEWDELHIANR..pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.