9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - - - Dated:- 3-12-2002 - Judge(s) : ARUN MISHRA. JUDGMENT The sole question for consideration is the date of starting of limitation for filing revision under sub-section (3) of section 264 of the Income-tax Act (for short "the Act"). The fact is not in dispute that notices R1, R2 and R3 for depositing amount pursuant to assessments were served on the petitioner on January 30, 1992. However, the assessment orders were not sent along with the notices. Assessment orders were passed on January 13, 1992. The petitioner applied for obtaining certified copies of the assessment orders on December 8, 1993, as per application P4. The certified copies were supplied to the petitioner on January 6, 1997; revision was preferred before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisely, the submission of learned counsel is that the petitioner came to know of the passing of the assessment orders as per notices R1, R2 and R3 issued to the petitioner and received by the petitioner on January 30, 1992. The sole question for consideration is the date of starting of limitation in the instant case and dependent upon that is the validity of the order P7 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax. Sub-section (3) of section 264 of the Act is the relevant provision; the same is quoted below: "264. (3) In the case of an application for revision under this section by the assessee, the application must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him or the date on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on the notices R1, R2, R3 of January 30, 1992. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had the knowledge and the petitioner without even service of the assessment orders came to know of the passing of the assessment orders. Thus, he clearly came to know otherwise of the factum of passing of the assessment order which is made as contemplated to set in motion limitation of one year prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 264 of the Act. The petitioner applied for certified copy highly belatedly after service of the demand notices which were served on January 30, 1992; the petitioner applied in December, 1993, when the period of limitation was already over and again after filing the application in December, 1993, obtained the certified c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
