TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated September 4, 1986, and to condone the delay and to direct the respondents to dispose of the concerned revision petition on merits and also to direct him to dispose of the revision petition for the assessment year 1965-66 pending with him since December 26, 1972. The facts leading to the filing of the present special civil application may shortly be stated as under: The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Gujarat Electricity Board on September 23, 1959, for additional supply of electricity for working a plant on condition that the petitioner contributed towards the cost of laying a service line to its factory. In accordance with the said agreement, in the accounting year ending June 30, 1964, the petitioner contributed R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 264 of the Act for the assessment year 1965-66 for claiming the said amount by way of revenue expenditure. The Tribunal permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal by its order dated November 23, 1972, which order was received by the petitioner on December 7, 1972. On December 26, 1972, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under section 264 to the Commissioner of Income-tax and claimed that the said amount of Rs. 3,00,600 be allowed as revenue expenditure in the assessment year 1965-66, the year in which the then Income-tax Officer had allowed depreciation on the said amount, treating the same as capital expenditure. The petitioner also applied for condonation of delay in filing the said revision application, in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner's further contribution to the Gujarat Electricity Board for laying of a service line to the petitioner's factory. The petitioner claimed depreciation in respect of the aforesaid amount in the assessment year 1969-70 as the entry for the said amount was made on the last day of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner for depreciation by his order dated March 20, 1972, on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the said service line and, therefore, it was not entitled to depreciation. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this regard. The said appeal was dismissed on September 30, 1972, and the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent on February 21, 1978, under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, for the assessment year 1968-69 claiming that the said amount of Rs. 6,00,000 be allowed as revenue expenditure and that the delay in filing the said petition be condoned in view of the previous litigation in the High Court and before the Commissioner on the very same issue. The said revision petition dated February 21, 1978, was submitted to the respondent. The respondent went on postponing the decision on this issue both for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1968-69 which were pending before him in spite of repeated reminders by the assessee to decide them. The respondent rejected the petitioner's revision petition for the assessment year 1968-69 on the ground that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 1965-66 as revenue expenditure, We understand, therefore, that no direction is now required to be given to the respondent in regard to the claim of the petitioner in regard to the assessment year 1965-66. Mr. S. N. Soparkar, reiterated the reasoning of the Commissioner of Income-tax, discussed in his order dated September 4, 1986 (a copy of which is produced at annexure " C " to the petition), that the assessee was fully aware as early as 1972 that it would be processing its claim of deduction as revenue expenditure in the year when the liability accrued and that, therefore, filing a revision petition in 1973 for the assessment year 1969-70 and not for 1968-69 was due to the negligence and mistake of the assessee in not taki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69, the lapse on the part of the petitioner indicates an oversight on its part rather than negligence. Again, in our view, this oversight on its part cannot be considered as if it amounted to negligence in taking the necessary proceedings. The negligence to operate as a bar in considering a case for condonation must be such negligence as is related to the diligence in taking appropriate proceedings. The petitioner's negligence, even if we call it negligence and not oversight, was in putting forth a claim for the assessment year 1969-70 instead of for the assessment year 1968-69. Such negligence has nothing to do with to the petitioner's anxiety to take appropriate proceedings in this r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
