2010 (7) TMI 1097

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of the Respondent Commissioner at Exhibit-B. [B] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction asking the Respondent Commissioner to allow the revision application of the petitioner at Exhibit-A." 3. For the assessment year 2003-04, the petitioner submitted return of income on 24.11.2003 disclosing total income at Rs. 3,31,56,790/-. The Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(1) of the Act on 30.3.2005 accepting the income as returned. Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 27.3.2009. During the assessment year 2003-04, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... expenditure of Rs. 1,87,71,456/- had not been added back, then the real income would have been Rs. 1,43,85,334/- in place of the returned income of Rs. 3,31,56,790/-. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application under section 264 of the Act dated 13.4.2009 before Commissioner of Income Tax, the respondent herein which came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 3.12.2009 which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 5. In response to the petition, the respondent has filed affidavit in reply wherein it is stated that the return was processed on 31.3.2005 and a refund of Rs. 32,710/- was determined in the case of the assessee. The refund order along with intimation was dispatched to the assessee. Hence, it is clea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e dated 1.4.2009, to submit that according to the Department itself, the intimation was served upon the petitioner on 27.03.2009. The moment the intimation came to be served upon the petitioner, the petitioner had filed the application under section 264 of the Act on 13.04.2009. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the Commissioner was not justified in holding that the petitioner had filed the application under section 264 after a lapse of about six years. Learned advocate has also addressed the Court on the merits of the impugned order; however, considering the view that the Court is inclined to take in the matter, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. 8. On the other hand, Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner withdrew the earlier application and filed a fresh application under section 264 of the Act on 13.4.2009. 10. In the application dated 13.4.2009, the petitioner has stated that as the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act for assessment year 2003-04 which is sought to be revised under section 264, has been served upon the petitioner assessee only on 27.3.2009, the revision application is within time and there is no delay as such in making the application. However, as can be seen from the impugned order of the Commissioner, in the reasons stated for rejecting the application under section 264, the Commissioner has held as follows : "[iii] Further when the alleged mistake as po....