TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of a Division Bench of this Court in KADRI MILLS (COIMBATORE) LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , the first reason assigned in the impugned order dated 02.03.2009 relating to limitation is erroneous - The first respondent is correct in holding that the application seeking revision of order is hit by Section 264(4)(c) of the Act - The petitioner, as he chose to file appeal against the order dated 07.11.2006 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal. Therefore, he cannot seek to revise the order that was appealed against. - W.P.NO.6591 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2010 - MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in of Rs.1,75,97,700/-. 6.Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition on 14.08.2006 to the second respondent under Section 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake in the revised assessment order dated 27.02.2006, for which the second respondent passed an order on 07.11.2006 rectifying some mistakes. 7.The petitioner also preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the said order dated 07.11.2006. The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 31.10.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act on 05.12.2007 before the Revisional Authority, the Commissioner of Income Tax I, Coimbatore. 8.The first respondent passed an order dated 02.03.2009 under Section 264 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit. (2) The Commissioner shall not of his own motion revise any order under this section if the order has been made more than one year previously. (3) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 any time in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, (National Tax Tribunal), the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation 1.- An order by the Commissioner declining to interfere shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed not to be an order prejudicial to the assessee. Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] shall be deemed to be an authority subordinate to the Commissioner." 14.It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in KADRI MILLS (COIMBATORE) LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX reported in 2000 (243) ITR 861 (MAD) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents also squarely applies to the facts of this case. 16.Hence, the first reason assigned in the impugned order dated 02.03.2009 relating to limitation is erroneous. However, in my view, the first respondent is correct in holding that the application seeking revision of order is hit by Section 264(4)(c) of the Act. In this matter, the petitioner filed the appeal against the order dated 07.11.2006 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in I.T.A.No.453/06-07 on 31. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
