Sevval Padmanabhan Vasudevan vs Income Tax Officer Ward-23(3)(3) ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13371 Bom

                                           1/2               455.WP-1588-2021.doc

         Digitally
         signed by
         DIKSHA
DIKSHA
DINESH
         DINESH
         RANE                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RANE     Date:
         2021.09.17
         17:48:00
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
         +0530

                                   WRIT 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 : 17th SEPTEMBER 2021

P.C. :

This is a petition impugning an order dated 12 th February, 2021

passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the application fled by petitioner under

Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act). Under Section 264

of the said Act, in the case of any order other than an order to which

Section 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, a Principal

Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the

assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in

which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause

such inquiry to be made and, may pass such order thereon, not being an

order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks ft.

2. Respondent no.2 has dismissed the application fled by petitioner on the

ground that the same was not maintainable as an appeal lies against the

order against which the application has been made for revision and assessee

Diksha Rane 2/2 455.WP-1588-2021.doc

has not also waived their right of appeal before the Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals), as reply under Section 264 (4) of the said Act.

3. An identical order was passed on the same day as order impugned

and we are informed by the same gentleman, which came to be decided by

a judgment dated 8th April, 2021 in Writ Petition (L) No. 6096 of 2021

Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax and another1 where the Division Bench of this Court set aside

the order impugned and remanded back the matter for denovo consideration.

4. Mr. Agrawal states that the facts of this case will also be covered by

the said judgment. Mr. Walve, as an ofcer of this Court, states that he had

appeared in that matter and concurs with the statement made by

Mr. Agrawal. In the circumstances, the order dated 12 th February, 2021 is

quashed and set aside.

5. Respondent no.2 is directed to consider the application that was fled

by petitioner under Section 264 of the said Act and pass such orders on

merit as he deems ft.

6. We will clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits

of the case.

7. Petition disposed with no order as to costs.

( M.S. KARNIK, J.)                                    (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)



1. 127 Taxmann.com 819 (Bom.)
Diksha Rane