9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessee sold certain lands and reinvested the proceeds in the purchase of agricultural lands. In the original assessment dated 25-9-1976, the claim of the assessee for relief under section 54 of the Act was not granted. Later, a reassessment was made by which the capital gains which had been accepted as returned at Rs. 69,656 were redetermined at Rs. 1,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le after the assessee had approached the Commissioner under section 264. But, the revenue has not taken any specific ground of appeal against the eligibility of the assessee for relief under section 54B or 80T. Though with reference to section 80T it is stated that the question whether the capital gains were short term or long term may have to be investigated, it is clear from the order of reasses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for rectification within the period of limitation, the ITO was bound to rectify it even after the lapse of five years in accordance with the instructions given to him by the Board is also not in question. Thus, we are left only with the single technical point, that because the assessee approached the Commissioner under section 264 in vain, he should not be allowed relief, which he is lawfully e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise only after the limitation for filing the appeal has expired. The second reason is that an order under section 264 refusing to interfere is deemed not to be an order prejudicial to the assessee. This shows that where the Commissioner refused to interfere, the entire proceedings become non est as far as the assessee is concerned and he is, therefore, left to seek his remedies elsewhere. Last, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
