9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Application No. 16279 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2021 - Honourable Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala And Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora For the Petitioner(s) : Mr Manish J Shah For the Respondent(s) : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ application is to the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1965 imposing penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, on addition of ₹ 48,48,309/made under Section 50C of the Act. 2. In the aforesaid context, we may state that in the case of the very same writ applicant herein before us, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of this case as the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 08.10.2018 while issuing notice is quite self explanatory. The order dated 08.10.2018 reads thus : 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the respondent Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the petitioner s revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). In such order, the Commissioner noted that the revision petition was filed beyond the period of limitation by 29 days. He was not convinced by the explanation rendered by the petitioner for such delay. Nevertheless, he proceeded to decide the revision petition on merits as well. The petitioner had raised two issues. One ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2018. Direct service is permitted. 3. We have heard Mr. Manish J. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Manish Bhatt, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. A very unusual order came to be passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad while disposing of the Revision Application filed by the Assessee under Section 264 of the Act, 1961. We may first quote the relevant observations with regard to the delay in filing the application under Section 264 of the Act. The observations are as under: As per provision contained in sub section (3) of section 264 application for revision under this secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner has not recorded any finding, as regards Section 50C of the Act and for this limited purpose, the matter may be remitted so that the issue of Section 50C can be considered. 8. Mr. Manish Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that as the only issue that needs to be now to be decided is with regard to Section 50C of the Act, let the matter be sent back to the Principal Commissioner. 9. For the forgoing reasons, this writ application succeeds in part. The impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner, Ahmedabad dated 19th March, 2018, Annexure H to this writ application, page99, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax4, Ahmedabad for the purpose of ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
