9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication. The pendency of other proceedings at various fora does not constitute a sufficient justification in this regard. Further as far the revision petition is concerned, the proviso to Section 264 (3) permits the CIT to condone the delay in filing such petition beyond one year from the date of communication of the order seeking to be revised, if the petitioner is able to show that he was "prevented by sufficient cause" from making such application. Qua the first order dated 3rd March 1990 of the AO rejecting the Petitioner's application for waiver of interest, the delay in preferring the revision petition was time barred and the delay was not adequately explained. As regards the second order dated 17th September 2001 of the AO, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139 (8) of the Act. Initially an application for waiver of interest filed by the Petitioner under Rule 117A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 ( Rules ) was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ( ACIT ), i.e., Assessing Officer ( AO ) on 6th March 1990 holding that the delay in taking inspection of records was attributable to the Assessee and in any event, return on estimate basis could have been filed. 3. Subsequently, the AO had imposed penalty a sum of ₹ 54,480 under Section 271 (1) (a) of the Act. The Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ]. This appeal came to be allowed by the CIT (A) on 6th/26th December 1990 deleting the penalty. The CIT (A) was of the view that the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay. 7. The above submissions have been considered. The principal ground on which the CIT rejected the revision petition was laches in (a) approaching the AO with a fresh petition seeking waiver and (b) in filing the revision petition qua the earlier order dated 6th March 1990 of the AO rejecting the application seeking waiver of interest. 8. The fact of the matter is that the Petitioner waited for around nine years after the order of the CIT(A) dated 6th/26th December 1990 before again approaching the AO under Rule 117 A for waiver of interest. While Rule 117 A does not expressly bar a second application and does not prescribe any limitation, the Petitioner has no satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delay in filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
