TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 901
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income Tax dated 15.12.2024 and the intimation order, passed by the second respondent, dated 05.07.2022 and to direct the respondents to grant the foreign tax credit claimed by the petitioner and consequently allow the refund of taxes to the petitioner. 2. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: 7.4. The submission of the assessee and the report of the Assessing Officer reproduced above are discussed herein. The order against which the assessee has preferred revision application is not an assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, but it is intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act which was issued just by processing the ITR filed by the assessee. Hence, the judicial decisions relied on by the assessee can not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 is ministerial in nature as otherwise the petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 20,000/-. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the assessing Officer on 06.07.2022. That said petition was rejected by an order, dated 09.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The preamble to the impugned order indicates that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 09.09.2022. However, the operative portion of the impugned order makes it clear that the rectification was filed only against the intimation issued under Section 143 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellate Tribunal but has not been made and the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or, in the case of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not waived his right of appeal; or (b)where the order is pending on an appeal before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] or (c)where the order has been made the subject of an appeal [to the Commissioner (Appeals) or] to the Appellate Tribunal. 8. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent rejecting the application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, it is noticed that an order passed under Section 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification issued under sub-section (1) and subsection (2) shall, as soon as may be after the notification is issued, be laid before each House of Parliament." 9. In my view, the petitioner cannot be left without any remedy, as there are prima facie indications of a mistake in not filing Form 67 as required under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. The powers are available to the appellate Commissioner to condone the delay under Section 249 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in filing appeal. Considering the fact that the petitioner has also pursued an alternate remedy though by mistake under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applying the Principle under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner would be entitled for condon....