9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Single Judge reads thus: "In the circumstances, the impugned orders passed at annexures-A1 to A2 as also the order passed at annexure E by the Assessing Authority have to be set aside and accordingly, they are set aside. It is for the petitioner to file application for condonation of delay to the Commissioner of Income Tax since the revised assessment has been filed well within six years from the date the original returns was filed. The Assessing Authority had only two years time to exercise his rights. However, the Commissioner has got power to condone the delay. The petitioner's case be considered by the Commissioner for condonation of delay and to refer the matter to the Assessing Authority to consider the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n petition under Section 264 of the Act seeking revision of the original intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 27.11.1998. Alongwith the revision petition, he also filed a separate application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition under Section 264 of the Act. The delay caused in filing the revision against the order dated 27.11.1998 was of 5 years 4 months and 6 days. The Commissioner considered the revision as well as the application for condonation of delay on merits and dismissed the revision petition filed by the assessee (against the order dated 27.11.1998) vide order dated 13.2.2007. He rejected the application for condonation of delay and also dismissed revision on merits. It would be relevant to rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The assessee had earlier filed a revised return on 28.3.2003 relying on the Supreme Court's decision referred to above, showing income and claiming refund. Vide letter dated 17.09.2003, the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim in the return filed on 28.3.2003, as the same was filed beyond the statutory time period. The assessee subsequently filed a revision petition under section 264 on 26.12.2003 against the letter by the Assessing Officer dated 17.09.2003, which was rejected by the CIT, Bangalore-III, vide his order dated 29.11.2004 for the reasons recorded in the order. 7. With reference to the Supreme Court's decision referred to above, it is necessary to mention that the Supreme Court held inter alia, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated by us, was not considered by the learned Single Judge in proper perspective and he proceeded on the assumption that the revision under Section 264 of the Act was filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.3.2003. By that order, the application filed by the assessee under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, whereby he sought refund by filing revised returns, was rejected. That appears to be the reason why the learned Single Judge in the concluding paragraph of the order has observed that "It is for the petitioner to file application for condonation of delay to the Commissioner of Income Tax since the 'revised assessment' has been filed within six years from the date the original returns was filed". As a matter of fact what was sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
