9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') as well as the assessment order dated 09.10.2003 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2001-02, the substantive issue is whether petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 89(1) of the Act. 3. A brief recital of the relevant facts would be in order. 4. Petitioner is an assessee under the Act within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent having the status of an individual. For the assessment year 2001-02, petitioner filed his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 264 of the Act. 1st respondent noticed that the said application was filed much beyond the limitation period of one year. Therefore, 1st respondent rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay. However, even on merit, 1st respondent held that assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent was a well reasoned one wherein 2nd respondent had given good reasons as to why benefit of Section 89 of the Act should not be extended to the petitioner. Even if two views are possible in this regard, the same would not render the view of the assessing officer illegal. 8. In view of above, both on delay as well as on merit, application filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act was dismissed by the 1st respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act including Sections 10(10C) and 89 as well as Rule 21A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, this Court answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 11. Mr. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department fairly submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is now well settled. However, he would contend that the assessment order had attained finality following rejection of the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act, that too, on the ground of delay. 12. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar as well as perused the materials on record. When the 1st respondent had rejected the revision application of the petitioner, the decision of the CBDT was not ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
