9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13, 1992. The petitioner applied for obtaining certified copies of the assessment orders on December 8, 1993, as per application P4. The certified copies were supplied to the petitioner on January 6, 1997; revision was preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, on November 24, 1997. The revision has been dismissed as barred by limitation by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, as per order P7, dated February 23, 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is bad in law; he places reliance on a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes No. 10-D (C.No. 9(22)-IT/47), dated April 15, 1948. As per the circular the assessment order should be supplied to the assessee along with the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d below: "264. (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 may, if he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, admit an application made after the expiry of that period." A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that limitation for filing revision under section 264 is of one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to the assessee or the date on which the assessee otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand notices which were served on January 30, 1992; the petitioner applied in December, 1993, when the period of limitation was already over and again after filing the application in December, 1993, obtained the certified copy only in 1997 after three years. It is clear that the petitioner failed to pursue the case seriously. As per the provision of sub-section (3) of section 264 of the Act no case is set out to the effect that the petitioner after knowledge as per notices R1 to R3 was prevented by any cause much less sufficient cause from filing revision within one year with effect from January 30, 1992. Having failed to avail of the benefit of the proviso, having come to know of the assessment order on January 30, 1992, in my opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
