9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (1) of Section 271 were initiated apart from imposing penalty and interest. The application made by the petitioner for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act was rejected on the ground that applications were filed belatedly after gap of 13 years. This observation was made on the ground that though the relevant assessment order was made on 1st December, 2000 the rectification application was made on 21st January, 2014. That is the reason why there is an observation by the CIT Appeal that the order passed on 1st December, 2000 had attained finality. - WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2616 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2017 - A. S. Oka And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. Dormaan J. Dalal for the Petitioner ORDER P. C. 1 Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred by the petitioner. By order dated 30th October, 2014 the Appeal came to be dismissed. 4 The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order shows nonapplication of mind as the same has been passed in a mechanical manner by merely quoting earlier orders. His second submission is that penalty should have been taxed on protective basis. He submitted that the petitioner had opted to apply for Voluntary Disclosure Scheme by paying necessary amount by a cheque, but the cheque was dishonoured due to mistake on the part of bankers. Relying upon Section 71 of the Finance Act, he submitted that the declaration made by the petitioner under the said scheme cannot be used in any proceedings fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act was rejected on the ground that applications were filed belatedly after gap of 13 years. This observation was made on the ground that though the relevant assessment order was made on 1st December, 2000 the rectification application was made on 21st January, 2014. That is the reason why there is an observation by the CIT Appeal that the order passed on 1st December, 2000 had attained finality. The Appellate Authority observed that the application filed after 13 years of passing of the assessment order which has been accepted by him after CITs order dated 13th August, 2007, the petitioner may not have any locus standi. 7 Thus, apart from delay, we find that there is absolutely no merit in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
