TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitions have been passed by the same office, who has been impleaded as respondent No.2 in all the cases. Incidentally the same officer passed the three orders. The operative part in all the three orders is common and the same reads as under:- "There is no case either of ignorance of the law on the part of the petitioner since the revision petition has been made well within the time allowed under that section and the prayer contained therein is also in order. Therefore, there was no reason why the petitioner did not prefer regular appeal under Section 246 of the Act by making 20% of the payment towards outstanding demand. Even on merits, there are no grounds to proceed as the applicant has never attended before the AO to plead its case on the merits of the case and instead raised defects in the speaking order of the AO and other technicalities as discussed in para 03 above, which were duly met before initiating proceeding in the case. The unexplained share application money introduced through paper/shell entities have been added to income and that is how matters stand. Further, this issue should have been rightly agitated before the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, I do not find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of stocks found during survey being treated as sales outside of books of account against the above-said erroneous assessment, the petitioner expressly waived his right to file appeal before Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) and filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act on 28.12.2018. In CWP No.12545 of 2021, the following facts need to be noticed:- The petitioner company has filed its return of income for the Assessment year 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 35,34,582/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner company on 12.02.2015 by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Amritsar and on the basis of information gathered by the department, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Amritsar (hereinafter referred as ACIT, Circle 2, Amritsar) recorded reasons to believe and reopened the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08.06.2016. That in response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted a letter dated nil received in the Office of the Additional Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to derive support to his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Nataraju (HUF) versus Pr. Comissioner Income Tax-2018 (254) Taxman 357 and Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax- W.P. (c) 6052 of 2017. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has asserted that a well-reasoned and speaking order has been passed by the Assessing Officer and there was no merit in the revision filed by the petitioner. He has relied also upon judgement in the case of M/s Nataraju (HUF) versus Pr. Comissioner Income Tax in WP No.54836 of 2017. The counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that revision under Section 264 of the 1961 Act is not an alternate remedy and the same cannot be invoked in a routine manner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our considered opinion, the two questions which arise for consideration of this Court are:- A. Whether revision under Section 264 of the 1961 Act is an alternate remedy to the remedy of regular appeal provided under Section 246 of the 1961 Act or not? B. Whether the authority ought not have proceeded to give findings on merits after holding that rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act is an alternate remedy to the appeal. The provision itself provides for the cases in which the authority shall not revise any order which are enumerated in sub-Section 4. The Commissioner's power of revision under this Section is subject to the certain conditions including:- 1. The order must be passed by an authority subordinate to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 2. In case the order is appealable, the Commissioner cannot exercise his revisional jurisdiction till the time within which the appeal can be filed expires. However, if an appeal lies against the order to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee must have waived his right of appeal. 3. If an appeal has been made to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), revisional power cannot be exercised during pendency of appeal. 4. Once an order has been made a subject of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner cannot exercise his revisional power. It is not the case of respondents that the case of the petitioner is barred on any of the aforesaid counts. Thus, in our view, the revisional authority erred i....