2012 (12) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DGEMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for and quash the order of the first respondent, dated 24.7.2012, for rejecting the request of the petitioner for withdrawing his Revision Petition, under Section 264 of the I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the said order is liable to be set aside. 4. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the first respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It had been stated that the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the Revision Petition, under Section 264 of the Inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., unilaterally, without the permission of the appellate authority. Therefore, the rejection of the request of the petitioner, for the withdrawal of the Revision Petition, is sustainable in the eye of law. 6. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it has been stated that the request of the petitioner to withdraw the Revision Petition, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to pursue th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent case. It has also been stated that this Court, in CIT VS. D.Lakshminarayanapathi, 250 ITR 187 (Mad), had held that the assessee invoking the revisional jurisdiction cannot constitute a bar to the filing of an appeal. 7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra,....