Case Law Details
Hargovind Pandey Vs Pr. CCE (Delhi High Court)
When section 264(3) uses the expression to ‘the date on which he otherwise came to know of it’, it refers to the date on which the Petitioner actually had a copy of the intimation. He could either get it from the Department or get it from any other source. In other words, it would not be sufficient that the Petitioner came to know of the fact that his return had been processed. Till such time the Petitioner had a copy of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the limitation period under section 264 (3) of the Act would not begin to run. Considering that Section 264 is a provision intended to benefit the assessee, no other interpretation is possible on a plain reading of it.
Full Text of the High Court Judgment / Order is as follows:-
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21-12-2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner (‘PCIT’) rejecting the Petitioner’s application under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) on the ground of limitation.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
