9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT (Appeals) or before the ITAT in due time. The fact that the revision petitions under Section 264 was filed by them within a year of passing of the impugned assessment order on 21.03.2014 namely, on 09.03.2015 and 17.03.2015, shows that the petitioners-assessees were very well guided about the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and for the reasons best known to them, they avoided the appellate remedies provided in the Act. Even otherwise, the ignorance of law is no excuse and no such presumption as prayed for, can be drawn in favour of the petitioners-assessees. Therefore, the fact that the assessee - petitioners preferred these Revision petitions under Section 264 of the Act just before the expiry of one year of the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale of agricultural lands by entering into the Joint Development Agreement with M/s.Skill Tech Engineers and Contractors on 25.01.2006 of the agricultural lands situated in Sy.No.119, Part, measuring 1 Acre 22 Guntas and Sy.No.213/1, Part, 3 Acres and 4 Guntas situated at Vajamangala village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore taluk, for the consideration of ₹ 44,41,250/-. 3. The Assessing Authority by passing the impugned order on 21.03.2014, raised a demand of ₹ 12,21,132/- against the petitioner-assessee including the tax and interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Act. 4. Instead of availing the remedy by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or ITAT in usual course, the assessee preferred a peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion should have been assessed in the hands of the assessee since his was a joint family and also his share of sale consideration received has been utilized for purchase of agriculture land for which he is eligible for deduction under section 54B of the Act. Here, it is pertinent to mention that, as per page 2, para 3 of the Development Agreement dated 25-01-2006 entered into between the assessee as one of the party and the Developer, it is clearly mentioned that The schedule property is ancestral property of the OWNERS. The RTC records the name of the Owner No.1 and 2. Owner No.1 and 2 s sister has been married 20 years back and in future any problem arises the said owners will be solved at their own cost. For this the said owners have agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings. Sd/- D. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, IRS Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Mysuru 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.M.R.Vanaja submitted that the petitioners-assessees being illiterate agriculturists could not avail the regular remedy of appeal and later on, they preferred the said petition under Section 264 of the Act, which ought to have been allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case. She also submitted that the applicant petitioner Mr.Siddaraju s/o late Madappa had expired during the pendency of the said petition under Section 264 of the Act on 21.04.2016. therefore, the impugned order vide Annexure-D dated 27.03.2017 in the name of Mr.Siddaraju cannot be sustained, while the other petition un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct obviously lies in a narrow compass and the said remedy cannot be treated as a regular remedy bypassing the regular remedy of appeals against the impugned assessment orders and one cannot be allowed to avail the said revisional remedy under Section 264 of the Act in a routine manner bypassing the requirement of payment of tax and allowing the regular appellate authorities to apply their minds to the relevant facts and evidence on record. 11. The said provision also stipulates interalia that the non exercise of powers under the said provisions of 264 of the Act declining to interfere at the instance of assesses shall not be deemed to be an order prejudicial to the assessee vide Explanations (1) (2) of Section 264(7) of the Act. The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
