High Court orders review of rectification petition within six months, emphasizing fairness. No costs awarded.

The High Court of Madras directed the second respondent to promptly review the petitioner's rectification petition within six months, emphasizing fair consideration and the petitioner's right to present their case. The court refrained from specifying the process, leaving it to the respondent's discretion. No costs were awarded, and the related Writ Motion Petition was closed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Direction sought by petitioner regarding arrears of demand pending disposal of rectification petition.
2. Consideration of rectification petition under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Dismissal of appeal by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on grounds of delay.
4. Jurisdiction of the second respondent under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1:
The petitioner requested a direction to the respondents not to enforce arrears of demand pending the disposal of the rectification petition. The petitioner sought relief regarding the enforcement of arrears during the pendency of the rectification petition filed before the second respondent.

Issue 2:
The petitioner urged the second respondent to consider the rectification petition dated 11.12.2017, filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that a specific ground raised before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not been addressed in the previous order.

Issue 3:
The Revenue's Junior Standing Counsel pointed out that the petitioner's appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed due to a delay of 408 days, without sufficient cause shown. This dismissal raised doubts on whether the second respondent could exercise jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 4:
Despite the concerns raised, the court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's rectification petition dated 11.12.2017 on its merits and in accordance with the law. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the specific process the second respondent should follow, leaving it to the respondent's discretion.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras disposed of the writ petition by instructing the second respondent to review the petitioner's rectification petition promptly, preferably within six months from the date of receiving the court's order. The court emphasized the need for a fair consideration of the petition and an opportunity for the petitioner's representative to present their case. No costs were awarded, and the related Writ Motion Petition was closed accordingly.

---