9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (1) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see-firm represented by one of its partners seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the ITO, Nandyal, dated 30th November, 1972, as confirmed by the CIT, by his order dated 18th July, 1975, and to direct the Commissioner, who is impleaded as the second respondent, to entertain the revision petition. We are inclined to grant this writ petition. We will now give our reasons for the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under s. 264 of the I.T. Act on 15th November, 1973. That was returned to him on 5th December, 1973, with the requirement that court-fee stamp should be affixed thereto. Subbayya did not re-present it. After coming to know that his partner had not re-presented the revision petition, Veeraiah-who has now filed the writ petition-submitted another revision petition with court-fee stamp. This was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returned to another partner for not affixing two rupees court-fee stamps. By that time, the firm had already been dissolved on account of some misunderstandings. The other partner who had received the return did not inform the present writ petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was obliged to file the petition again for the second time with the necessary court-fee stamp. It is true that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition by itself. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Commissioner was not right in treating the petition sent on 30th January, 1975, as a fresh petition and, on that assumption, coming to the conclusion that there was a delay of eight months. Since the one sent up on 30th January, 1975, is only a reiteration of the earlier petition which was in time, we set aside the order of the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
