Wp/855/2013 Of Anup Lakhmichand Anand v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-18 And 2 Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.855 OF 2013 Anup L. AnandV/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Ors. ...Petitioner ...Respondents Mr.Sameer G. Dalal for the Petitioner. Mr.A.R. Malhotra for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.DATE : 2ND MAY, 2014. P.C. :- 1.Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2.The only question is whether the respondents ought to have condoned the delay of 46 days in filing the revision application under section 264. 3.The assessment order was passed on 30.12.2010. The period of one year for filing the revision application expired on 30.12.2011. During this period, the assessment proceedings in respect of the petitioner for the assessment year 2009-2010 were going on. The assessment order for the assessment year 2009-2010 was passed on 28.12.2011 i.e. two days before the expiry of the period of one year for filing the revision application in respect of the assessment year 2008-2009. 4.Around this time, the petitioner claims to have realized that he had inadvertently claimed the loss of derivatives as a speculative loss instead of as a business loss. It is understandable that even after 28.12.2011, the petitioner took some time to approach his advisors and filed the revision application on 15.02.2012. There is nothing to indicate that the respondents have been prejudiced in any manner on account of this delay. The ends of justice require condonation of delay of 46 days in such circumstances. 5.In the circumstances, rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The revision application shall be heard on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)