TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 of 2007(G) - - - Dated:- 26-5-2011 - MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN, J. For Appellant :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act owned by the Government of India. The company filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, Ext.P1, before the 2nd respondent in respect of acceptability of a revised return filed belatedly. In the revision petition, the petitioner requested for condonation of delay of more than six years in filing the revision petition. By Ext.P2 order, the Commissioner refused to condone the delay and, consequently, the prayer for condonation of delay as well as the revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him, for a subsequent assessment year, the Commissioner passed Ext.P3 order of assessment, in which, he had specifically stated that for the year relating to the assessment year, in respect of which, Ext.P1 revision petition was filed, the revised return filed by the petitioner was filed the beyond the time prescribed and has not been accepted by the assessing authority. He submits that from that decision, the assessee came to know that his revised return has not been accepted since it was filed belatedly. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition against that expression of an opinion prejudicial to them by the assessing authority, which was referred to in Ext.P3 order. Insofar as that decision was not at any time communicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pting or rejecting that revised return, all what the assessee could have done is to challenge the assessment for the assessment year in an appeal as provided under the Act. In fact in Ext.P1, the petitioner does not seek any relief against any order whatsoever of any authority subordinate to the 2nd respondent Commissioner. In fact, the only remedy sought for in the same is regarding the income assessed for the relevant assessment year, which is a question, which the assessee could have raised in an appeal against the assessment itself. 8. Section 264 of the Income Tax Act reads thus; "264. (1) In the case of any order other than an order to which section 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, the Commissioner may, eit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is pending on an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals); (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 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." First of all, the revision should be against an order by an authority subordinate to the Commissioner. Secondly, the revision should have been filed within one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
