9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ext.P2 order of assessment finalised against the deceased 1st writ petitioner, with respect to the assessment year 1999 - 2000, he filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By virtue of Ext.P3 order passed in that revision petition, the assessment was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the assessing authority for passing fresh assessment order, after giving copies of the statement recorded from the loan creditors and after allowing cross examination of the creditors, if so desired by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to admit fresh evidence, if any produced, by the assessees. The assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer in the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter through Ext.P3 order, and the assessee had not cooperated with the proceedings; nor had he taken any steps to cross examine the loan creditors, despite furnishing of the cash flow statement and other materials to him. Hence the Single Judge found that there exists no illegality or perversity vitiating the order of assessment, justifying any interference at this highly belated point of time. Consequentially the writ petition was dismissed. The above appeal is filed challenging the said judgment. 4. Heard; counsel for the appellants as well as Standing Counsel for the Government of India (Taxes). 5. We take note of the fact that the original assessment was completed as early as in the year 2004. The assessee challenged the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in refusing interference with the recovery proceedings initiated. This is more so, because the petitioners have failed in their contention that there was lack of service of proper demand notice. Hence we are of the opinion that the Writ Appeal deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. However, learned counsel for the appellants had pointed out that, the observations contained in the impugned judgment may stand in their way in availing the statutory remedy of appeal, even by seeking condonation of delay, before the appellate authority. We are of the opinion that, dismissal of the writ petition could not be in a manner foreclosing the remedy if any available to the appellants in challenging the revised assessment by availi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
