TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h 30, 2009, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) and the order dated December 3, 2013, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("the CIT(A)"), annexures P. 4 and P. 6, respectively. Direction has also been sought to respondent No. 3 to decide the appeal of the petitioner on the merits. 3. Briefly, the facts as narrated in CWP No. 4471 of 2014 are that the petitioner is an income-tax assessee. For the assessment year 2005-06, the petitioner filed his income-tax return declaring an income of Rs. 49,886 which included business income from M/s. King International (Marriage Palace) in the shape of salary and interest. In the returns, agricultural income of Rs. 4,68,527 was also declared. In the earlier years also, returns w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner also filed an affidavit dated November 11, 2008, annexure P. 3 explaining the position that due to negligence of the chartered accountant, the proceedings culminated in an ex parte order. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist and own about 25 acres of land. The return of M/s. King International was also filed to show that it was a partnership firm and the petitioner was only a partner getting salary and interest whereas the Assessing Officer had treated the petitioner as proprietor of M/s. King International. Vide order dated March 30, 2009, annexure P. 4, respondent No. 2 dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order along with the application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnexure P. 4) passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the Act, the factual matrix herein may be noticed. 8. The Assessing Officer framed an ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Act as the assessee had failed to respond in spite of repeated notices. In the assessment order dated October 31, 2007, the Assessing Officer disallowed the agricultural income for want of proof and assessed the income of Rs. 5,50,000 from business. 9. The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer read thus : "In case you fail to attend before me on appointed date or fail to furnish any evidence in support of your claim of agricultural income or fail to furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d but within the period prescribed under section 264 of the Act. On revision under section 264 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax, vide order dated March 30, 2009, annexure P. 4 had dismissed the petition with the following observations : "The facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on September 1, 2005, declaring an income of Rs. 49,886 from business and profession and Rs. 4,68,527 from agriculture. However, the assessee filed no documents in support of the net profit as per the income and expenditure statement. Similarly, no particulars or information or documents were furnished in support of the claim of agricultural income declared in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....264 of the Act before Commissioner of Income-tax. After rejection of the revision petition, an appeal along with application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed against assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Once the petitioner had taken recourse to revisional remedy under section 264 of the Act and after the rejection of the petition, it was not open to have fallen back on statutory remedy of appeal under the Act. Similar issue had been adjudicated by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 316 (Orissa) regarding maintainability o....