TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the one year period for filing an application for revision under Section 33A(2) of the Income-tax Act is to be computed from the date the order was signed by the Income-tax Officer, or from the date when the order was communicated to or came to the knowledge of the aggrieved party.
Analysis: The Court examined prior decisions establishing that time for instituting remedies should ordinarily run from the date on which the party received notice of the order or had the opportunity of knowledge, rather than the date the order was signed. The provision in sub-section (2) of Section 33A was treated as a time limit for the aggrieved party to apply for revision, distinct from the Commissioner's power under sub-section (1). The Court rejected the argument that the computation must be from the date the order was passed, and held that the settled rule applies absent a clear statutory indication to the contrary. The Court also addressed objections to issuance of prerogative relief and delay, finding that mandamus was appropriate to compel the Commissioner to entertain the petition and that the delay did not bar relief in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The one year period under Section 33A(2) is to be computed from the date the order was communicated to or came to the knowledge of the aggrieved party; mandamus is issued directing the Commissioner to take the application on file and dispose of it in accordance with law, favouring the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
