TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Commissioner's order on late filing under Income-tax Act; rejects lack of legal guidance defense. Petition dismissed.</h1> 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 ... Application For Revision 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 yearThe 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
