9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f defence equipments/components to various defence establishments in the country. In respect of levy of interest under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and for waiver for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the matter landed before the Settlement Commission which, by order dated December 30, 1992, remitted the matter to the assessing authority, and the assessments were completed on December 6, 1993, and February 21, 1994, respectively. 2. In terms of sub-section (3) of section 264 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee is entitled to prefer a revision within a period of one year from the date of the assessment order. However, without availing of the remedy of filing revision petition, the appellant-assessee approached this court by filing W. P. Nos. 21111 to 21113 of 1994. By order dated December 22, 2000, this court, while dismissing W. P. No. 21111 of 1994 as infructuous, disposed the remaining two writ petitions with the following directions : " However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Commissioner of Income-tax for waiver of interest under section 264 of the Act. The petitioner is also permitted to prefer revision petition within a period of one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made it clear that the revisional authority should consider the revision petitions on the merits in the event they are filed within the said period without raising any objection as to the limitation. Only in view of the period prescribed by this court, the revisional authority, though had power to entertain the revision petitions even beyond a period of one year for good and sufficient reasons, had rejected the revision petitions solely on the ground that they were not filed as directed by this court within the prescribed period. 6. This takes us to the only question as to whether the appellant-assessee is justified in not preferring the revision petitions as directed by this court within a period of one month. Immediately after the revision petitions were filed on May 7, 2001, a doubt was entertained as to whether the revision petitions could be entertained for consideration on the merits, as they were filed beyond a period of one month as directed by this court. In fact, in the revision petitions as to the earliest opportunity available to the appellant-assessee, it is stated as follows in paragraph 2. " 2. The final portion of the above order was pronounced in the open cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that I am one of the counsel for the petitioner in W. P. Nos. 21111 to 21113 of 1994, I am filing this affidavit in support of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the above matter. 2. I state that our court clerk, after verification with the Registry had informed us that a copy application filed for issue of certified copy of the order dated December 22, 2000, passed by this hon'ble High Court in W. P. Nos. 21111 to 21113 of 1994 made on the same date of the order was misplaced and, therefore, we as the counsel were called upon to make a fresh application. Accordingly, a fresh copy application was made on February 27, 2001, in C. D. No. 3205 of 2001 and the same was processed and the order copy made ready on April 16, 2001, and delivered on the same day. I state that within 30 days of obtaining the order copy of this hon'ble court, the petitioner has filed on May 7, 2001, petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act as directed by this hon'ble court. 3. I state that the respondent required a clarification to be obtained from the hon'ble High Court regarding the prescribed limitation stated in the order for filing petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of 30 days. From the explanation offered by the counsel appearing for the appellant through his affidavit, it is seen that the order was passed on the last working day before the court closed for Christmas holidays, i.e., December 22, 2000, and the court only pronounced the operative portion of the order, the explanation offered by the counsel that he was not aware of the period prescribed by the court could be accepted and we have no reason to discard the same. Further, immediately copy application was made and since the same was misplaced in the Registry, another copy application was made on February 27, 2001, and thereafter the copy was obtained on April 16, 2001, and the revision petitions were filed within a period of one month prescribed by the court. There is no delay on the part of the appellant-assessee in preferring the revision petitions within a period of 30 days from the date when the copy was obtained. Of course, the learned counsel who represented the appellant should have intimated the orders of this court to prefer the revision petitions at least when he came to know that the application was misplaced in the Registry and another application was filed and, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed by this court, when this court would be competent to extend the said period subsequently. Further, we are at a loss to understand the purpose for which the assessee could drag on the matter, as the assessee would not be gaining anything by dragging the matter, except keeping the entire assessment proceedings extended without any challenge. In the event the revisional authority is directed to consider the revision petitions on the merits, the respondent-Department also would not be prejudiced. On the other hand, if the revision petitions are not restored to file, the assessee would be seriously prejudiced and the assessment orders which were completed on December 6, 1993, and February 21, 1994, respectively, would become final without there being any challenge. In order to meet the ends of justice, we accept the explanation offered by learned counsel for the appellant-assessee in his affidavit as to the furnishing of the copy application and the receipt of the copy of the order coupled with the fact that the very same stand was taken by the appellant-assessee before the revisional authority as well as this court as to the filing of the clarification petitions. 11. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
