Sheth Shree Karshandas Halu Dharamshala Jamnagar v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17491 of 2019 ================================================================SHETH SHREE KARSHANDAS HALU DHARAMSHALA JAMNAGAR VersusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ================================================================ Appearance:MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATHandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 28/09/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH) We have heard Shri Hardik V.Vora, the learned counselappearing for the petitioner, and Mrs.Mauna M.Bhatt, thelearned counsel appearing for the respondent Department. Although the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(a)A Writ of Mandamus or writ, order, or direction in thenature of Mandamus directing the respondent to allow therelief claimed and/or pass order against revision applicationfiled u/s 264 on 31.03.2016; delete the consequentialdemand raised u/s 143(1)(a) of Rs.19,44,180/- and allowthe refund of excess tax paid of Rs.99,69,883/-; (b)Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court maydeem fit and more appropirate in order to grant interim reliefto the Petitioner; (c)Any other and further relief deemed just and proper begranted; (d)To provide for the cost of this petition.” yet, before us the limited relief prayed is for appropriatedirections to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) –respondent no.1 to take an appropriate decision on the pendingRevision Application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act,1961, dated 29[th] March 2016 (Annexure-A to the petition), withina fixed time frame after affording due opportunity of hearing tothe petitioner. The submission is that the said Revision Application ispending since March 2016, i.e. more than four and a half years,and as such, it needs to be decided expeditiously. On the other hand, Mrs.Bhatt, the learned counselappearing for the respondent Department, submits that withinany reasonable time allowed by this Court the said RevisionApplication would be decided by the authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, wedispose of this petition with a direction to the respondent to takean appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law on thepending Revision Application referred to above within a period oftwo months from the date of production of the certified copy ofthis order after affording due opportunity of hearing to theassessee – petitioner. We make it clear that we have not entered into the meritsof the matter and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption)is at liberty to take appropriate decision strictly in accordancewith law on the basis of the materials on record. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ.) /MOINUDDIN/ A. B. VAGHELA (J. B. PARDIWALA, J.)