9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.10.2015 with delay. The first respondent has specifically pointed out that the petitioner has not filed any application to condone the delay specifically indicating the reasons for such 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. The order of the first respondent impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.07.2010 altering only the figures in gross total income and total income without making any changes with respect to the other columns and with income computation. While so, after five years of filing the revised return, the petitioner company received a communication dated 07.08.2015 stating that there is outstanding of tax demand for the assessment year 2007-08 to ₹ 87,26,080/-. The petitioner was not aware of the intimation issued under section 143(1) till it was received by them on 23.09.2015. Therefore, the petitioner approached the first respondent and filed an application under Section 264 on 06.10.2015. The same was rejected by the impugned order on the reason it was filed beyond the period of limitation. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn. 6. On the other hand, the learned senior standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not chosen to take steps to rectify the mistake within the time, even assuming there is a mistake and therefore, the 1st respondent has rightly rejected the application as a time barred one. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties and perusing the materials placed before this Court, it is evident that the petitioner claims that gross total income shown in the original return filed on 29.10.2007 as ₹ 2,74,47,877/- is a factual mistake and on the other hand, it is only a sum of ₹ 56,91,233/- as the sum to be reflected as gross total income in all the places ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition is set aside and the application filed under section 264 dated 06.10.2015 is restored to file. b) The petitioner is directed to file an application for condonation of delay before the first respondent explaining all the reasons for such delay. Such application shall be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (c) On receipt of such application, the first respondent shall consider the delay application and thereafter pass an order on the same on merits and in accordance with law. If the first respondent is satisfied with the reasons, he shall go into the merits of Section 264 application and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
