9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted under section 264. The first respondent found that the said application was filed nearly after seven years from the date of intimation under section 143(1) dated 20.10.2008 and no specific petition indicating reasons for delay and seeking condonation of delay has been filed along with section 264 petition. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows: For the assessment year 2007-08, the petitioner filed e-return on 29.10.2007. The petitioner earned gross total income and total income of Rs. 56,91,233/- and however, due to inadvertence and by mistake committed by the employee of the petitioner Company, both the gross total income and total income were shown as Rs. 2,74,47,877/-, instead of 56,91,233/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he merits of the facts and circumstances. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and submitted that a bonafide mistake is sought to be rectified only in respect of the figure shown as gross total income in the relevant columns and the authorities ought to have considered the same and decided the matter on merits after perusing the entire records. Therefore, he contended that the rejection of the application on the technical ground of limitation would result in undue hardship to the petitioner since he is called upon to pay the tax in respect of the income over and above the actual gross income, as shown by the petitioner in their revised return. 6. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay. It is also seen that the first respondent has chosen to reject the application only on the ground that it was filed belatedly. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsidering the matter afresh if the petitioner is in a position to satisfy the first respondent that the delay in filing such application under section 264 was neither willful or intentional. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the respective parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The order of the first respondent impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the application filed under section 264 dated 06.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
