9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment order of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 24.04.2000. The Appellate Authority passed an order on 24.11.2000, by partly allowing the appeal and issued certain directions to the second respondent. However, the petitioner also preferred a further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3.The second respondent passed the revised order dated 16.02.2001 by giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 24.11.2000 referred to above. 4.The second respondent also passed the rectification order dated 11.02.2003 under Section 154 of the Act. The second respondent passed another rectification order dated 20.01.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act rejecting the petitioner's plea to revise the order dated 07.11.2006 of the second respondent passed under Section 154 of the Act. 10.Notice of motion was ordered on 16.04.2009. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. 11.Heard Mr.K.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 12.Two reasons are given for rejecting the application seeking to revise the order passed under Section 154 of the Act. Those reasons are:- (a) the application seeking to revise the order is barred by limitation, as the same was made beyond one year. (b) the order sought to be revised was already made the subject of an appeal and that therefore, the application i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals)] [or to the Commissioner (Appeals)] or to the Appellate Tribunal but has not been made and the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or, in the case of an appeal [to the Commissioner (Appeals)] or to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not waived his right of appeal; or (b) where the order is pending on an appeal before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)]; or (c) where the order has been made the subject of an appeal [to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal. (5) Every application by an assessee for revision under this section shall be accompanied by a fee of [five hundred] rupees. (6) On every application by an assessee for revision under this sub-section, made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The same was communicated to the petitioner on 10.01.2007 and it is not disputed. The application seeking to revise the order was made on 05.12.2007. Hence, it is made within one year. But the first respondent wrongly proceeds as if the petitioner seeks revision of the order dated 27.02.2006. The order dated 27.02.2006 was passed under Section 243(3) of the Act. The petitioner does not seek revision of the said order. Had the first respondent taken into account that the order sought to be revised is the order dated 07.11.2006, this error could not have occurred. The relevant passage from the impugned order in this regard is extracted hereunder: "The company application seeks for a revision of the order dated 27.2.2006. Whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
