Remedy U/s. 264 could not be treated as regular remedy by passing regular remedy of appeals

Nataraju (HUF) Vs PCIT (Karnataka High Court)

the fact that the assessees-petitioners preferred these Revision petitions under section 264 of the Act just before the expiry of one year of the impugned assessment orders passed by the Assessing Authority, on the contrary reflects that the petitioners-assessees were very conscious and aware of the legal provision and deliberately avoided the availing of the regular remedy by way of an appeal and at the nick time of the expiry of the time period, preferred the present revision petition under section 264 of the Act, which for good reasons, came to be dismissed by the learned Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax.

This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the said impugned order in the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are found to be devoid of merit and the same are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. No costs.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions in this Court on 06-12-2017 aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent-Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysuru, rejecting the petition of the petitioner-assessee under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by Mr. Siddaraju S/o Late Madappa, who expired during the pendency of the said proceedings before the learned Commissioner but the fact of the death of the said person on 21-4-2016, does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the 1st Respondent-Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax during the pendency of the said proceedings.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.