9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay, where undisputedly, the revisional authority is vested with powers to condone delay without any statutory cap qua length of delay. There is no disputation or disagreement that the impugned orders or in other words, impugned order-I and impugned order-II arise out of common factual matrix and only the assessment years are different (obviously numerical values are also different). Therefore, this Court, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case on hand, is of the considered view that the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner that delay could have been condoned for one assessment year viz., 2012-13 and both matters could have been taken up and heard out on merits deserves to be accepted. Delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13-14' as the case may be. Two separate orders both under Section 143(3) of IT Act came to be passed qua writ petitioner with regard to said AYs. Assessment Order pertaining to AY 2012-13 is dated 31.03.2015 and the Assessment Order pertaining to AY 2013-14 is dated 31.03.2016. There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that against both these Assessment Orders for said AYs, statutory appeal remedy is available to writ petitioner inter alia under Section 246-A of IT Act, but the writ petitioner did not avail the same. It is submitted that writ petitioner was lacking in advice from professionals concerned. Other attendant reasons for not availing statutory appeal remedy have been articulated in the affid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articulated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of impugned order-I and the same reads as follows: '5. I have considered the petition of the assessee as well as the report of the AO. The fact that the assessee did not appear for hearing despite having given many opportunities by this office indicate that he does not have any valid and convincing explanation to offer for the delay in filing the application u/s 264. I agree with the views of the AO that the assessee has been getting advice from a qualified Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the assessee are not found to be convincing. 6. In view of the above, I find no reasonable cause to condone the dely and the petition for revision u/s 264 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f powers under proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 264 of IT Act and thereafter, heard out both the revisions together. 8. In response to the aforesaid submission, Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax, who accepted notice on behalf of both the respondents in both the writ petitions submitted that writ petitioner ought to have filed statutory appeals under 246-A and not having chosen to do so can not now be heard to contend that revisional authority should not have rejected their revision petitions on the ground of delay. 9. By way of reply to this submission of learned Revenue Counsel, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that even under 246-A of IT Act, appellate authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut prejudice to the main and sheet anchor objections, learned Revenue Counsel submitted as an alternate submission that it would be appropriate to put the writ petitioner on terms. 12. This Court has carefully considered the contra submission and reply to the same. This Court has also taken into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case besides the unique technicalities in instant case. 13. Owing to all that have been set out supra, this Court considers it appropriate to pass the following common order: a) both the impugned orders viz., order dated 28.03.2019, bearing Reference C.No.9542(01)/PCIT/SLM/2017-18 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 and the order dated 28.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
