9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the second respondent whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act has been rejected primarily on the question of maintainability and at the same time dealing with the merits of the case as well. 2. The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that, the petitioner filed IT returns for the assessment year 2008-09 showing a net l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, it is stated that the revisional authority informed the representative of the petitioner that the revision petition itself was not maintainable, because it was not accompanied by the requisite fee of Rs.500/- which is a mandatory requirement to have the revision entertained. The case of the petitioner is that, the requisite fee had already been effected on 07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to be entertained in view of the reasons mentioned therein. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if at all the revision petition was technically not maintainable, the defect should have been pointed out and the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to cure the defect then and there. Instead of let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason that the petitioner could not explain the correct factual and legal position, as the petitioner was given to understand that interference would be declined for non-satisfaction of the requisite fee, which made the petitioner to file Ext.P6 Revision afresh,, on the same day. 5. After hearing both sides, this Court finds that the non-satisfaction of the requisite fee along with the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
