Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 1477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... one for the assessment year 2006-07. Though the aforesaid applications were submitted on 12.6.2014, it was beyond the period of one year as provided under the statute. Such delay could not have been condoned, as per the plain and simple reading of Section 264 extracted above. Commissioner, in my view, rightly rejected the applications being time barred, though on other point the reasoning given is not sustainable in view of the ratio deciendi culled out in the judgment in Vijaya Gupta [ 2016 (3) TMI 977 - DELHI HIGH COURT] regarding the powers of Commissioner. The explanation given by the petitioner for condoning the delay was also not found satisfactory as it was a subsequent cause of action. Since delay has not been explained in a proper .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urn showing gains from investments in shares under the head 'investments' in the balance sheet as 'capital gains' for the respective financial years, which were accepted by the Department. However, for the assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11, the Department assessed such gains as 'business income', while for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10, when petitioner suffered capital loss, it was assessed as 'capital gain/loss'. Assessment orders for the years 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11 were assailed before the appellate authority and before this Court. Both the authorities rejected the case of the petitioner and the matter is stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Realising the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the power to rectify mistake by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 264. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and appraised the paper book. 6. Section 264 of the Act reads as under: 264. Revision of other orders. ( 1) In the case of any order other than an order to which section 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner 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 preju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ccompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees. (6) On every application by an assessee for revision under this sub-section, made on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, an order shall be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which such application is made by the assessee for revision. Explanation . In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this sub-section, the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), an order in revision under sub-section (6) may be passed at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rejected the applications being time barred, though on other point the reasoning given is not sustainable in view of the ratio deciendi culled out in the judgment of Delhi High Court in Vijaya Gupta (supra) regarding the powers of Commissioner. The explanation given by the petitioner for condoning the delay was also not found satisfactory as it was a subsequent cause of action. Since delay has not been explained in a proper and reasonable manner, dismissal of the applications for revision of orders for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10, vide orders dated 20.11.2015, Exts. P10 and P11, respectively, are perfectly correct and do not call for interference. In my view, such an attempt was an afterthought realising the fact that for asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates