9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question of exemption claimed, on merits. - W. P. No. 13336 of 2019 & W. M. P. No. 13444 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2022 - THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH For the Petitioner : Mr. A. S. Sriraman For the Respondents : Mr. Prabu Mukund Arunkumar Junior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner challenges order dated 07.02.2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/R1 rejecting an application for revision filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') for assessment year 2012-13 filed on the ground of delay as well as on the merits of the matter. 2. The petitioner had filed a return of income within time wherein it claims to have inadvertently failed to seek exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r authorities, clarifying at paragraph 6 the judgement, that the restriction placed upon the powers of an assessing authority, would not extend to, or impinge upon, the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 9. I have had an occasion to consider an identical issue sitting in the Tax Bench of this Court in Sri Selvamuthukumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, [(2017) 79 taxmann.com 113]. The facts in that case are similar to the present case, insofar as it deals with the power of Commissioner under Section 264 to cause enquiry in regard to claim made by an assessee. 10. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Department as captured in para 12 of that order is identical to the stand taken by R1 now and is ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 and 14.12.2009 (AY 2003-04, 2004- 05 and 2005-06), by which time, limitation under Section 139(5) for filing a revised return, being 31.3.2008, had lapsed. Suffice it to say that, on the facts of this case, the remedy under section 264 is appropriate and ought to have been exercised in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner of Income tax. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. 12. In light of the view taken in the above matter, the conclusion of the revisional authority in this matter is erroneous in law. The claim of the petitioner under Section 10(38) is liable to be accepted subject to the claim being in order. Impugned order dated 07.02.2019 is set aside for the limited purpose of enabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
