9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 399 - HC - Income TaxRevision petition u/s 264 which is pending against the order u/s 197 for the financial year 2019-20 is not yet been decided and the pendency of that revision petition is causing prejudice to the Petitioner on a day to day basis - we direct Respondent No. 1 to decide the Petitioner s aforesaid pending revision petition within next six weeks by giving a reasoned order. Petitioner shall appear before Respondent No. 1 on 01.10.2019 at 11 00 AM for directions. We have not made any observations on merits and in case the Petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by Respondent No. 1, the remedies of the Petitioner are preserved.
Issues involved:
Delay in deciding revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act causing prejudice to the Petitioner. Analysis: The High Court addressed the issue of delay in deciding the Petitioner's revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, which was pending against an order dated 10.05.2019 under Section 197 of the Act for the financial year 2019-20. The Petitioner contended that the pendency of the revision petition was causing prejudice on a day-to-day basis. After hearing the counsels, the Court directed Respondent No. 1 to decide the pending revision petition within the next six weeks and provide a reasoned order. This directive aimed to resolve the delay issue and mitigate the prejudice faced by the Petitioner due to the unresolved matter. Furthermore, the Court scheduled a date for the Petitioner to appear before Respondent No. 1 on 01.10.2019 at 11:00 AM for further directions. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case. It also clarified that if the Petitioner was aggrieved by any order passed by Respondent No. 1 in the future, the Petitioner's remedies would be preserved. This provision ensured that the Petitioner's rights and avenues for redressal were safeguarded, maintaining the fairness and integrity of the legal process. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on addressing the delay in deciding the Petitioner's revision petition under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution to prevent ongoing prejudice. By setting a timeline for the decision and outlining the procedural steps for the Petitioner to follow, the Court sought to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication process while upholding the principles of natural justice and due process.
|
