Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN
Kamal Pasricha as Trustee of Kuldip Kaur Trust – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Sonak J.)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
3. This Petition is concerned with the assessment year 2014-2015.
4. By instituting this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the impugned intimation under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Exhibit-D) and the impugned order dated 12 February 2021, made by the commissioner under Section 264 of the I.T Act, 1964 dismissing the petitioner’s revision against the impugned intimation dated 8 July 2013.
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:
A.- because the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of instituting an Appeal against the impugned intimation dated 8 July 2015.
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.
6. Regarding the first ground, we refer to the provisions of Section 264 of the IT Act, 1961, in which no such limitation is to be found or based on which
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.
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....
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.
The court ruled that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax improperly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263, as the issues had already been addressed in the original assessment, invoking the doct....
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
