9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Improper rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The petitioner, a partner in a firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of cosmetic chemicals, filed a petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had previously filed returns showing losses for certain assessment years, but due to non-compliance with notices under section 143(2), the Income-tax Officer completed assessments ex parte. Subsequent appeals against these assessment orders were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as time-barred. The present petition under section 264 was filed challenging the rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay in submitting the appeals. The main contention before the court was the improper rejection of the condonation of delay application. The petitioner's counsel limited the scope of the petition to this specific issue, rather than delving into the validity of the assessment orders or the merits of the case. The application seeking condonation of delay was filed nearly four months after the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had passed the order, leading to its rejection. In light of the arguments presented by both sides, the court referenced the case law of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC), emphasizing a liberal approach towards condonation of delay. The court decided not to express an opinion on condonation but directed the authorities to reconsider the application seeking condonation of delay afresh. The court ordered the authorities to consider various factors, including the conduct of the petitioner, time spent in other proceedings, and the desirability of examining the matter on its merits to ensure justice between the parties. Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition by setting aside the order rejecting the condonation of delay application and instructed the authorities to decide the matter afresh, taking into account all relevant considerations. No costs were awarded, and any security amount held was to be refunded to the petitioner following verification.
|
