https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774833 The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of revision application u/s 264 against intimation u/s 143(1). The court held that orders u/s 264 are not appealable before the Tribunal u/s 253, leaving appeal u/s 246 as the only remedy. Noting prima facie mistake in not filing Form 67 under Rule 128, the court directed petitioner to challenge the s 143(1) intimation before appellate Commissioner within 30 days. The court applied Limitation Act s 14 principles for delay condonation, considering petitioner's mistaken pursuit of alternate remedy u/s 264. en-us Fri, 04 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jul 2025 08:39:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774833 The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of revision application u/s 264 against intimation u/s 143(1). The court held that orders u/s 264 are not appealable before the Tribunal u/s 253, leaving appeal u/s 246 as the only remedy. Noting prima facie mistake in not filing Form 67 under Rule 128, the court directed petitioner to challenge the s 143(1) intimation before appellate Commissioner within 30 days. The court applied Limitation Act s 14 principles for delay condonation, considering petitioner's mistaken pursuit of alternate remedy u/s 264. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774833