https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90500 The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that such orders are not appealable before the Tribunal under Section 253. The petitioner's sole remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 246 against the intimation issued under Section 143(1). Noting a prima facie error in failing to file Form 67 as mandated by Rule 128, the court acknowledged the appellate Commissioner's authority under Section 249(3) to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Applying the Limitation Act's Section 14, the petitioner was granted relief for delay caused by pursuing an incorrect remedy. The petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to file the appeal against the Section 143(1) intimation before the appellate Commissioner within 30 days of the order's receipt. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2025 08:39:09 +0530 Tue, 15 Jul 2025 08:39:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90500 The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that such orders are not appealable before the Tribunal under Section 253. The petitioner's sole remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 246 against the intimation issued under Section 143(1). Noting a prima facie error in failing to file Form 67 as mandated by Rule 128, the court acknowledged the appellate Commissioner's authority under Section 249(3) to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Applying the Limitation Act's Section 14, the petitioner was granted relief for delay caused by pursuing an incorrect remedy. The petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to file the appeal against the Section 143(1) intimation before the appellate Commissioner within 30 days of the order's receipt. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 15 Jul 2025 08:39:09 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90500