TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere advanced with reference to the writ petition No.150 of 2010, therefore, the facts are taken from the said file. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1998-1999. The petitioner/assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Authority which compelled the Assessing Authority to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The said order is dated 29th of December, 2005. The petitioner did not file any appeal, instead challenged the Assessment Order by filing a revision as provided for under section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Admn.), Muzaffarnagar. The memo of revision is dated 23rd of May, 2006. The said revision has been dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 25th of March, 2008 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said fact, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is born out from the assessment order itself. Twice, the dates were fixed for hearing of the revision by the Commissioner but the petitioner failed to appear. The petitioner has not been able to show the sufficient cause, if any, for his non appearance on the fixed date. Further, in absence of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly dismissed the revision exparte without deciding it on merits. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to examine the proposition as to whether the Commissioner of Income Tax was right in rejecting the restoration appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious to pursue his remedies under the Income Tax Act and filed the revision application as a chance petition and did not prosecute it. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 1998-1999. It is in the interest of both the Revenue and the assessee that the assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act should come to an end at the earliest. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Chandra Kant J. Patel Vs. V.N. Srivastava (supra) in support of his contention that the Commissioner of Income Tax was duty bound to decide the revision on merits. In other words, the Commissioner of Income Tax should have gone through the entire record himself and he could not dismiss the revision in absence of the petitioner. On a careful con....