Court sets aside rejection of petitioner's request under Section 264, remands for reassessment following grandmother's case.

The court found the rejection of the petitioner's request under Section 264 unwarranted, setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment following directions from the grandmother's case judgment. The Assessing Officer was directed to comply within four weeks, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 1980-1981 to 1986-1987.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 1980-1981 to 1986-1987. The dispute centered around the ownership of an immovable property in Chennai between the petitioner and his grandmother. The property was sold, and the co-owners were entitled to interest on the unpaid balance of the sale proceeds. The petitioner and his grandmother had shown income from the property and claimed deductions. The assessment for the grandmother was challenged and accepted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, the petitioner voluntarily requested the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act, leading to a revised assessment in line with the grandmother's case. The Department challenged the grandmother's case, resulting in a judgment that clarified the taxation of interest on the unpaid purchase price and rental income from the property.

The petitioner then sought a similar assessment based on the grandmother's case under Section 264 of the Act, citing his young age at the relevant time. The request was rejected on the grounds of alleged double taxation and delay. The court found that the rejection was based on misinterpretation, as the petitioner's actions did not fall under a Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. The rejection citing delay was deemed incorrect as the assessment was completed based on the grandmother's case, and the Department should have revised the petitioner's assessment accordingly. The court referenced previous judgments emphasizing equality in taxation among co-sharers and noted that the petitioner did not claim double taxation in the petition.

The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's request under Section 264 was unwarranted. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment in line with the directions given in the grandmother's case judgment. The Assessing Officer was instructed to comply within four weeks from the date of the order. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

---