Court upholds Commissioner's order on late filing under Income-tax Act; rejects lack of legal guidance defense. Petition dismissed.

The High Court upheld the Commissioner's order, ruling that the delay in filing the application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act was not adequately justified. The petitioner's argument of lack of legal guidance was rejected as they had professional assistance from a chartered accountant and a former Indian Revenue Service person. The court dismissed the petition challenging the Commissioner's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 due to delay in filing the application.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Application under Section 264 of the Act filed beyond one year
The Commissioner may call for the record of any proceedings under the Act under section 264. Sub-section (3) of section 264 requires the application for revision to be made within one year from the date of communication of the order. The application in this case was filed 1 1/2 months beyond the one-year limit. The delay was attributed to lack of proper legal guidance when receiving assessment orders. However, it was argued that the petitioner had the services of a chartered accountant and a tax consultant who was a former Indian Revenue Service person. The court found this argument valid and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, upholding the Commissioner's decision.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that the delay in filing the application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act was not properly explained, and the petitioner's claim of lack of legal guidance was deemed invalid due to the professional assistance available. The petition was dismissed.

---