TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithili Mehta for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad for the A.Y. 2020-21. 3. The petitioner filed the Revision Application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) dated 19.12.2022 with the office of the respondent No. 1 on 26.12.2022 with the prayer to revive the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer on 21.09.2022 under Section 143 (3) r/w Section 144B of the Act and also prayed to amend the Assessment Order and set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The petitioner is a Trust who filed the incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2023 drawing the attention of the petitioner to provision of Section 264 (5) of the Act which suggest that filing of the said fees of Rs.500/- is mandatory and there is no provision in the Act to condone the delay in making payment of the fees. The petitioner in reply dated 20.03.2023 reiterated the earlier submissions and further submitted that even if the date of payment of the fees i.e. 04.02.2023 is considered as date of filing of application, the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner would be within the prescribed time limit of 1 year as per Sub-Section (3) of Section 264 of the Act. It was therefore prayed by the petitioner to consider the Revision Application on merits. However, respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e statutory provisions. ITAT being a quasi-judicial body under the I.T. Act, it has to follow the statutory provisions as prescribed. Under analogous circumstances, while dealing with an appeal filed by an assessee against the order passed under section 271FA, the ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Sub-Registrar Office, Meppayur Kozhikode v. DIT (Intelligence) [2013] 37 taxmann.com 36/[2014] 64 SOT 10 (URO) observed that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the provisions of the Act and cannot admit an appeal even if the opponent party gives consent permitting the appellant to file an appeal. In other words, the consent of a litigant party would not confer jurisdiction on a quasi judicial authority unless and until it is otherwise conferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the case of any order other than an order to which section 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, the 4 [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit. xxxxxx (5) Every application by an assessee for revision under this section shall be accompanied by 5 [a fee of five hundred rupees]." 7. Sub-section (5) of Section 264 thus prescribes for payment of fees f....