TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revisional order passed under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be set aside for failure to consider the petitioner's explanation for non-appearance and non-filing of objections, and whether the matter required reconsideration afresh.
Analysis: The impugned revisional order was found to be a summary rejection that did not deal with the petitioner's specific plea that he had been unable to appear and respond before the assessing authority because of hospitalization and serious ailments. The relevant explanation and supporting material were not considered, although they were asserted as sufficient cause for the default. Since the revisional authority had not addressed this material aspect, the order was treated as deficient and unsustainable.
Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the revisional authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded, and the revision was restored for a fresh decision after consideration of the additional material and explanations.
Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order that fails to consider a party's material explanation constituting sufficient cause and is rendered in a non-speaking manner is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication.
TaxTMI 
