TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the President. The reasons as to why the Petitioner did file the applications at the said point of time, have been mentioned by the Petitioner in the applications for each of the Assessment Years. - Once the Commissioner is vested with the power of condonation of delay, then it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to take into consideration the reasons mentioned by the Assessee seeking condonation of delay. – benefit of exemption extended to petitioner after condoning delay - 1549 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2010 - CORAM :V. C.DAGA R.M.SAVANT,JJ. Dr. K Shivram a/w Mr.Ajay R Singh and Renu Choudhari for the Petitioner. Mr. D K Kamwal for the Respondents. JUDGMENT (PER SHRI R.M. SAVANT) 1 Rule. With the consent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said provision: "(26AAA) in case of an individual, being a Sikkimese, any income which accrues or arises to him (a) from any source in the State of Sikkim; or (b) by way of dividend or interest on securities; Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to a Sikkimese woman who, on or after the 1st day of April 2008, marries an individual who is not a Sikkimese. Explanation--- For the purposes of this clause, "Sikkimese" shall mean (i) an individual, whose name is recorded in the register maintained under the Sikkim Subject Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Register of Si[kkim Subjects"), immediately before the 26th day of April, 1975; or (ii) an individual, whose name is included in the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitioner is a Sikkimese subject and registered under Sikkim Subject Register at Sr. No.741 as also certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Adm.), Gyalshing, West Sikkim, disclosing that the Petitioner owns landed property bearing holding No.5 plot no.91 admeasuring are 8860 hectare situated at Yuksam and that he is the Schedule Tribe belonging to Bhutia Community. Similar applications were filed by the Petitioner up to the Assessment Year 20-05-2006. Since there was a delay in filing the Applications, the Petitioner filed another application for condonation of delay, in the said applications under Section 264. The reasons for the delay were also stated in the said applications for the consideration of the authority to which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of delay whereas the Learned Counsel for the Respondents advanced submissions to the contrary. In the light of the submissions made by the Learned Counsel, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 264(6) of the said Act i.e. the provisions under which the Commissioner is vested with the powers to condone the delay. The same is reproduced hereunder : "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 suffi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as can be seen from the impugned order, the Commissioner has not even adverted to the reasons mentioned by the Petitioner in the application of condonation of delay and has in a cryptic manner rejected the said Application by observing that he is unable to entertain the Petitioner beyond the time limit prescribed. Once the Commissioner is vested with the power of condonation of delay, then it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to take into consideration the reasons mentioned by the Assessee seeking condonation of delay. A reading of the impugned order, however, does not indicate that the reasons mentioned by the Petitioner have been considered. In fact, the said reasons have not even been adverted to by the Commissioner. In matters of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
