Income Tax Ofcer Ward-23(3)(3) And Ors v. Respondent

Digitallysigned byDIKSHADIKSHADINESHDINESHRANEIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYRANEDate:2021.09.1717:48:00ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION+0530WRIT PETITION NO.1588 OF 2021 Sevval Padmanabhan Vasudevan ….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Ofcer Ward-23(3)(3) and ors. ….Respondents ---- Mr. Madhur Agrawal a/w. Mr. Fenil Bhatt, i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for petitioner.Mr. Sham V. Walve for respondent- Revenue. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, & M.S. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 17[th] SEPTEMBER 2021 P.C. : This is a petition impugning an order dated 12[th] February, 2021passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the application fled by petitioner underSection 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act). Under Section 264of the said Act, in the case of any order other than an order to whichSection 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, a PrincipalCommissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by theassessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act inwhich any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or causesuch inquiry to be made and, may pass such order thereon, not being anorder prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks ft. 2.Respondent no.2 has dismissed the application fled by petitioner on theground that the same was not maintainable as an appeal lies against theorder against which the application has been made for revision and assessee has not also waived their right of appeal before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals), as reply under Section 264 (4) of the said Act. 3.An identical order was passed on the same day as order impugnedand we are informed by the same gentleman, which came to be decided bya judgment dated 8[th] April, 2021 in Writ Petition (L) No. 6096 of 2021Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed vs. Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax and another[1] where the Division Bench of this Court set asidethe order impugned and remanded back the matter for denovo consideration. 4.Mr. Agrawal states that the facts of this case will also be covered bythe said judgment. Mr. Walve, as an ofcer of this Court, states that he hadappeared in that matter and concurs with the statement made byMr. Agrawal. In the circumstances, the order dated 12[th] February, 2021 isquashed and set aside. 5.Respondent no.2 is directed to consider the application that was fledby petitioner under Section 264 of the said Act and pass such orders onmerit as he deems ft. 6.We will clarify that we have not made any observation on the meritsof the case. 7.Petition disposed with no order as to costs. ( M.S. KARNIK, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)