Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ
Kamal Pasricha As Trustee Of Kuldip Kaur Trust – Appellant
Versus
The Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(2) And Others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges order (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. commissioner declined jurisdiction (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. This Petition is concerned with the assessment year 2014-2015.
5. Upon reviewing the impugned order dated 12 February 2021, we find that the commissioner has effectively declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction on the following two grounds:
B- because intimation dated 8 July 2015 under Section 143 (1) of the IT Act, 1961 is not an ‘order’ revisable under Section 264 of the IT Act.
7. The discussion relevant to the above issue in paragraph 19, 20 and 21 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:-
20. Also the argument of the Revenue to say that the Petitioner can still file the appeal by filing an application for condonation of delay, is in our view, not proper and would be a fallacious proposition as after the period of 30 days, there is no right of appeal but an appeal would rest on the discretion of the Appellate Authority to condone delay upon sufficient cause being shown. We are also afraid that we are unable to agree with the reliance of t
The court established that an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act is revisable under Section 264, and the Commissioner cannot decline jurisdiction based solely on the existence of a....
An intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act is revisable under Section 264, and the Principal Commissioner must exercise revisional powers when the time for appeal has expired.
Assessment order under section 153A with prior section 153D approval cannot be revised under section 263 unless approval held erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The court established that an intimation under Section 143(1) can be treated as an order for revision under Section 264, emphasizing the assessing authority's duty to consider refund claims based on ....
The notice under Section 263 does not need to be signed by the Commissioner to be valid, as long as it serves the purpose of providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Valid service of notice under section 148 is essential for jurisdiction; failure to serve invalidates the assessment order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
