NARINDER KUMAR Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s Dewan Chand Dholan Dass & Co., a partnership firm, has filed the present writ petition through its partners seeking the issue of writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT") on 17.9.2007 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner firm under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(2.) The petitioner firm was carrying on business in the export of walnuts and walnut kernels. In respect of the assessment year 2000- 01, for the previous year ended on 31.3.2000, it filed a return of income on 30 th October, 2000 declaring a loss of '3,80,68,466/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer and several notices of hearing were issued and details were sought. There was only lukewarm compliance by the petitioner-firm in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Eventually, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act to the best of his judgment on the ground that despite adequate opportunities the petitioner-firm was not cooperating in the assessment proceedings. He estimated the income of the petitioner firm at '1,96,47,232/- as against the loss declared by the assessee. The assessment order under Section 144 of the Act was passed by him on 28.2.2003.

(3.) A revision petition under Section 264 of the Act was filed before the CIT on 16.1.2007 against the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of this section, the revision petition ought to have been filed within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the assessment order. Since the revision petition was delayed inordinately, the petitioner-firm filed an application before the CIT for condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition. Several reasons were advanced by the petitioner-firm in the application for condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition. It was pleaded by the petitioner-firm that the CIT should condone the delay in filing the revision petition and decide the correctness of the best judgment assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on merits. It would appear that written submissions were also filed before the CIT on the merits of the best judgment assessment.