DEVSTHALE V V Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partner of the firm bearing the name and style of Opal Fine Chemicals Industries, which carries on business at Indore. The firm was constituted on 28th April, 1953, and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cosmetic chemicals. It was assessed to income-tax for the first assessment year, i.e., 1974-75. The firm obtained registration under the relevant provisions of the IT Act. Various assessment orders were passed. The petitioner filed returns showing losses at Rs. 1,74,610 and Rs. 2,29,947 for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1980-81, respectively. For non-compliance with notices under s. 143(2), the ITO completed the assessments ex parte determining the total income at Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs, respectively. It appears that the petitioner did not file any application under s. 146 against the assessment orders passed by the ITO. The petitioner preferred appeals against these assessment orders on 10th Jan., 1984, before the CIT (A-I), Indore. These two appeals were dismissed by the CIT (A) in limine on 3rd March, 1984, as time-barred. An application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in submitting the appeals for these two years was also rejected by the CIT (A). The present petitions under s. 264 have been filed on 27th July, 1984, and are thus late by nearly four months. The petitioner filed an application dt. 21st Feb., 1985, and a written submission dt. 5th March, 1985. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 3 (CIT, Bhopal) under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961 (annexure `P-20'), the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The respondents have filed the return in opposition. I have heard both the sides.

(2.) AS urged by counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary for me to examine the validity of the orders or the merits of the matter. He limited this petition to the grievance of improper rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay in the submission of the case under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961. The application under s. 264 of the Act was filed on 27th July, 1984, and was barred by nearly four months, as the order of the CIT (A) was passed on 3rd March, 1984.

(3.) THIS petition is, thus, disposed of in the terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.