A.kamal Kumar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.23182 of 2018andW.M.P.Nos.27084 & 27085 of 2018 A.Kamal Kumar ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Room No.212, 2nd Floor, 63, Race Course Road, coimbatore - 641 018 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward II(3), (presently Ward 3(3)), 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641 018. ...Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call forthe records relating to the order of the Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, the 1st Respondent herein in C.No.221/Pr.CIT-2/01/2017-18 dt 22.03.2018 for the assessment year 2008-09 inthe case of the Petitioner and quash the same and consequentlydirect the 1st Respondent to condone the delay in filing theRevision Petition and delete the addition of Rs.6,58,237/-. For Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For Respondents: Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel (IT) Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel (IT) takesnotice for the respondents. By consent of parties, the main writpetition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stageitself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of thefirst respondent dated 22.03.2018, in dismissing the revisionpetition filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, on the ground that the very revision was filedwith inordinate delay of more than five years, not beingexplained with reasons with supportive documentary evidence. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusedthe materials placed before this Court. 4. It is seen that the petitioner was issued with an orderof assessment for the assessment year 2008-2009 dated30.12.2010, assessing his total income of Rs.8,17,410/- therebymaking an additional amount of Rs.6,58,237/-. Challenging thesaid order, the petitioner filed the above revision before thefirst respondent under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act,1961,on 25.07.2017, with a delay of more than five years. The onlyreason stated by the petitioner for filing such revision withsuch inordinate delay of more than five years is that theearlier Chartered Accountant, who was handling his case, has notadvised him to file any appeal or revision before higherauthorities. 5. The first respondent having not satisfied with the abovereasoning has chosen to reject the revision on the ground thatthe same is filed with inordinate delay, without there being anyproper reasons and explanations. 6. I find that the first respondent is totally justified inrejecting the revision, since the reasons stated by thepetitioner for the delay is neither convincing nor acceptable,as ignorance of law is no excuse. No doubt, the learned counselfor the petitioner invited this Court's attention to thecommunication sent by the ICICI Bank to the petitioner on29.12.2010 to contend that the Assessing Officer has erred inmaking an addition of Rs.6,58,237/-. I do not think that theabove communication of the ICICI Bank, in any way, would helpthe petitioner, as the said communication clearly indicates onlythat no transactions were made for an amount of Rs.6,80,348/-for the financial year 2007-2008 and not that the totaltransaction made for the said financial year was not for anamount of Rs.6,80,348/-. 7. Therefore, I find that even on merits, the petitioner hasnot made out a case so as to seek for indulgence before thefirst respondent for considering the revision, by condoning such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enormous delay. Accordingly, I find no grounds to interfere withthe order of the first respondent. Hence, the writ petitionfails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequentlyconnected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-Deputy Registrar //True Copy// 7. Therefore, I find that even on merits, the petitioner hasnot made out a case so as to seek for indulgence before thefirst respondent for considering the revision, by condoning such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enormous delay. Accordingly, I find no grounds to interfere withthe order of the first respondent. Hence, the writ petitionfails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequentlyconnected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrarkrk / mkTo1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Room No.212, 2nd Floor, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641 018 2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward II(3), (presently Ward 3(3)), 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.+1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No.62728.+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.61893. W.P.No.23182 of 2018rrs 19/09/2018