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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Commissioner was bound to consider whether sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and whether the rejection of condonation without such consideration was sustainable.
Analysis: Under section 33A(2), the Commissioner could entertain a revision presented after the prescribed period only if he was satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. A proper application of mind to the question of sufficient cause was therefore obligatory. The order impugned disclosed no real consideration of that question. The assessee had been pursuing remedies in relation to the same assessment dispute and was not obliged to file a parallel proceeding merely to guard against an adverse result in the pending proceedings. The expression "sufficient cause" was also required to be approached with a liberal and practical construction, particularly where the delay was linked to bona fide pursuit of another available remedy.
Conclusion: The rejection of condonation was unsustainable, and the matter had to be remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration of delay and the revision petition on the merits of sufficient cause.