TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending on the specified date. Mr. Walve submitted that time limit for disposal of the revision petition expired long before the specified date and that before filing the application under Section 264, petitioner had also withdrawn the appeal that he had filed before the CIT(Appeal) and, therefore, application under Section 264 itself was not maintainable. In our view, that was for the Commissioner before whom the application under Section 264 was pending to decide and pass the order, which has not been done. Whatever may be the merit of the application under Section 264, the fact is that application was still pending on the date the declaration under DTVSV Act was filed. Therefore, in our view, the rejection of petitioner s declaration un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng leave to withdraw the appeal. 3 On 22nd May 2017, petitioner filed an application under Section 264 of the Act before the CIT, Central - Pune. In the application, petitioner has also sought condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 264. We are not considering whether that such delay was condonable or not. What we are looking for is only whether there was an application under Section 264 pending on the specified date as required under the DTVSV Act. 4 Petitioner would qualify as an appellant under Section 2(1)(a)(v) of the DTVSV Act. It says, in this Act unless the context otherwise requires, appellant means a person who has filed an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and such applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at before filing the application under Section 264, petitioner had also withdrawn the appeal that he had filed before the CIT(Appeal) and, therefore, application under Section 264 itself was not maintainable. In our view, that was for the Commissioner before whom the application under Section 264 was pending to decide and pass the order, which has not been done. Whatever may be the merit of the application under Section 264, the fact is that application was still pending on the date the declaration under DTVSV Act was filed. Therefore, in our view, the rejection of petitioner s declaration under DTVSV Act for A.Y.-2006-2007 as contained in the Form-1 filed on 25th December 2020, is incorrect. Respondents are directed to process the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
