9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner chose to revoke the revisional jurisdiction, the authority was under obligation to decide the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 264 of the 1961 Act only - See Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd [ 2017 (11) TMI 1157 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Whether the authority ought not have proceeded to give findings on merits after holding that revision was not maintainable? - We need to observe that it is a trite law that in case the Court wishes to non-suit the litigant on the issue of maintainability, it ought not enter into the merits of the case as held in Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan Ors. Versus Nawaz Imdad Jah Bahadur Ors. [ 2009 (3) TMI 1023 - SUPREME COURT] . However, in the present case(s), the revisional authority has not only dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable but has also non-suited petitioner(s) on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, we hold that the impugned order is erroneous on both the counts. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to set aside the orders passed by the revisional authority in all the three petitions. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide the revision petitions afresh in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this matter. The Assessee is advised to file an appeal in accordance with law and to apply for condonation of delay. In CWP No.12477 of 2021, the following facts need to be noticed:- The petitioner-company has filed its return of income for the Assessment year 2012-13 on 27.09.2012 declaring income of ₹ 1,77,448/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner company on 12.02.2015 by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Amritsar and on the basis of information gathered by the department, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Amritsar (hereinafter referred as ACIT, Circle 2, Amritsar) recorded reasons to believe and reopened the assessment for the assessment year 2012- 2013 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after obtaining necessary approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 2, Amritsar. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08.06.2016. That in response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted a letter dated nil received in the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Range-2, Amritsar on 08.09.2016 stating that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certified copy of the reasons recorded and approval obtained, if any for the issuance of notice under reference to enable it to raise its objections. The Assessing Officer provided the copy of reasons recorded to the petitioner. Thereafter, the assessment proceedings were started and the Assessing Officer called various details and explanations from time to time. The ACIT Circle 2 Amritsar completed the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147/148 of the Act on 12.12.2017 at the assessed income of ₹ 4,13,84,580/- against returned income of ₹ 35,34,582/- to the income of the petitioner company on account of unexplained credits found in the form of share application money. That against the above-said erroneous assessment, the petitioner expressly waived his right to file appeal before Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) and filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act on 28.12.2018. In CWP No.12567 of 2021, the following facts need to be noticed:- The petitioner filed his income tax return of the assessment year 2016-17 on 19.10.2016 declaring total income of ₹ 9,66,28,470/- vide acknowledgment receipt No.514550651191016. However assessment un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit. 2. The Commissioner shall not of his own motion revise any order under this section if the order has been made more than one year previously. 3. In the case of an application for revision under this section by the assessee, the application must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him or the date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier: Provided that the Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, admit an application made after the expiry of that period. 4. The Commissioner shall not revise any order under this section in the following casesa. where an appeal against the order lies to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction, the authority was under obligation to decide the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 264 of the 1961 Act only. Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax- W.P. 6052 of 2017 has held that:- Thus, a Revision Petition u/s 264 of the Act can be filed against any order (including an assessment order) passed by a subordinate officer, which is otherwise appealable before Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 264A of the Act or under Section 253 of the Act before the Tribunal, where such appeal has not been filed and limitation period for invoking remedy has expired and the assessee has waived his right to appeal. The statutory bar is that Revision Petition cannot be entertained when an appeal has been filed before Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Tribunal in respect of such order or if no such appeal has been filed, the time limit for filing such appeal has not expired. Right to file an appeal should be waived for a revision petition to be maintainable. The objective and purpose is to ensure that the assessee does not assail the same order before two forums and that it can elect between eith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
