9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the same has been passed in respect of proceeding initiated by the Petitioner seeking refund. The impugned order dated 9 April 2019 adjudicates a lis between the Revenue and the Petitioner. This requires an examination of facts for adjudication of the dispute. There are no substance in the submission of the Petitioner that no revision would be available against the impugned order as it is not an order passed under the Act. Thus, remedy of revision under section 264(1) of the Act would be available to the Petitioner. Petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 2484 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA AND NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. Mr. Madhur Agrawal with Mr. P.C. Tripathi i/b. Mr. Atul Jasani for the Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the Petitioner relates to the assessment year 2005-06 and the delay by itself makes it a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction should be exercised by this Court and the Petitioner should not be relegated to any alternate remedy under the Act. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Pinto for the Revenue, supports the impugned order dated 9 April 2019. 5. We agree with the submission of the Petitioner that no appeal under the Act from the impugned order is available to the Petitioner. This as the order in the nature of the impugned order has not been made appellable under section 246A of the Act. However, what remains for consideration is whether revision under section 264 of the Act is available. The relevant portion of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, do not find any substance in the submission of the Petitioner that no revision would be available against the impugned order as it is not an order passed under the Act. Thus, remedy of revision under section 264(1) of the Act would be available to the Petitioner. 7. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the Petitioner to the decision of this Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 326 ITR 514 (Bom) to contend that only the order passed under the specific provision of the Act will alone be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner. In the facts of the above case i.e. Larsen Toubro Ltd. (supra), an order passed under section 197 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
