9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - - Dated:- 24-11-2003 - Judge(s) : ALOKE CHAKRABARTI., S. K. GUPTA. JUDGMENT ALOKE CHAKRABARTI J.-This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order passed on November 28, 2001, by the learned single judge deciding the Writ Petition No. 428 of 1997 (Satish Kapoor v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 93). The facts relevant for the present purpose in brief are that the late Bisnu Narayan Kapur was regularly assessed under the Income-tax Act. After his death as a bachelor on March 22, 1992, leaving behind him the writ petitioner as one of his legal heirs, it was detected that some of the investments of the deceased assessee had not been disclosed by him in his return and, therefore, the petitioner voluntarily filed returns for the concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the interest charged under section 217 for the assessment years 198485, 1987-88 and 1988-89 was waived. On April 23, 1996, the petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner of Income-tax for rectification of the said order dated February 20, 1996, on the ground that the requirements contained in sub-section (4) of section 273A were extraneous as the application filed by the petitioner was one under sub-section (1) and not under sub-section (4). After the matter was referred to the Chief Commissioner who refused to interfere, the Commissioner rejected the application for rectification by his order dated July 30, 1996. Challenging the said two orders, the writ application was filed which was decided by the judgment impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai v. CBDT and Revenue [1998] 231 ITR 745 (SC); Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. v. C.B. Rathi [1985] 151 ITR 542 (Guj); Laxman v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 465 (Bom) and Guru Nanak Estates v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 118 (Cal). Mr. Samaddar, learned counsel for the Revenue, contended that as the petitioner filed rectification application under section 154, the order sought to be rectified merged in the order passed under section 154 and such order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 154 is appealable under section 246 of the Act and in this connection reference was made to subsection (c) thereof. It is stated that in such circumstances, remedy of appeal being available under section 246, the writ petition was rightly refused to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal shows that any assessee may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before October 1, 1998, or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under various sections. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 253 shows that such appeal can be filed against an order passed by the Commissioner under specified sections which do not include section 273A. Therefore, it is apparent that neither the order under section 273A nor the order under section 154 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is appealable either under section 246 or under section 253. Therefore, it appears that the writ petition could not be refused to be entertained on the ground of not availaing of any alternative st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
