9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is restored to file – Requested to the learned Single Judge to consider the writ petition afresh on merits – Decided in favor of Revenue. - Writ Appeal No. 18021/2011 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 27-8-2013 - Dilip B Bhosale And B Manohar, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri. K V Aravind, Adv For the Respondent : Sri. Ganesh H Kempanna, Adv JUDGEMENT:- PER : Dilip B Bhosale Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ appeal preferred by the revenue, is directed against the order dated 7th of March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 32772/2009 (T-IT) whereby the writ petition filed by the assessee came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odification of the income assessed and prayed for refund. The revised return, however, was not entertained by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax as barred by limitation. The assessee thereafter filed revision petition under Section 264 of the Act on 29.11.2004 against the order/letter of the Assessing Officer dated 17.9.2003. The revision, however, was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground that the letter dated 17.9.2003 issued by the Assessing Officer was not an order so as to invoke the provisions contained in Section 264 of the Act. The assessee did not pursue the matter further. In other words, the orders passed in the proceedings arising from the application for revised returns attained finality. 4. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a delay of about 2 years 9 months in filing the revision petition, which does not stand satisfactorily explained. The assessee is not justified in stating that immediate steps were taken to file the revision petition. Therefore, on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Advani Co. Pvt. Ltd. -vs- R.D. Shah 72 ITR 395 (SC), I am of the view that the inordinate delay in filing the revision petition was not due to sufficient cause within the meaning of the proviso to section 264(3) and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 6. It is observed from the relevant records that the assessee company has not disclosed the fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion below section 80HHC(4B) which excludes certain transactions from being considered as export out of India was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1986 was already in force at the relevant period of time when the original return of income for the assessment year 1997-98 was filed by the assessee company. If all the essential conditions for claiming deduction under section 80HHC including the requirement of the transactions involving clearance at any Customs station were satisfied in the assessee s case, it was open to the assessee to claim the deduction under section 80HHC in the original return itself. 5. Mr. K.V. Aaravind, learned Counsel for the appellants-revenue submitted that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
