Supreme Court Of India
Computwel Systems (P) Ltd. vs. W. Hasan & Anr.
Sections 1998FA (No. 2) 88, 1998FA (No. 2) 95(i)(c)
B.N. Kirpal, M. Srinivasan & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Special Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 5464 of 1999
26th October, 1999
Counsel Appeared
Ms. Radha Rangaswamy & Ms. Mohna Madan Lal, for the Petitioner
ORDER
BY THE COURT :
Delay condoned.
2. Order of assessment was passed in the case of the petitioner on 12th Jan., 1996, under s. 143 (1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. Under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, a Scheme known as Kar Vivad Samadhan was promulgated. The persons could avail of the benefit of this scheme if their cases were still pending. In October, 1998, the petitioner filed an application under s. 264 before the CIT for revising the order of assessment dt. 12th Jan., 1996. The CIT did not condone the delay of one year ten months and ten days. It appears that the petitioner also filed on 28th Dec., 1998, a declaration under s. 88 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. This declaration was not entertained by the CIT in view of the fact that according to him there was no revision application pending because the delay in filing the revision application has not been condoned. The High Court on a writ petition being filed, upheld the order of the CIT and dismissed the writ petition.
3. We agree with the observations of the High Court that no ground was made out for condoning the delay in filing the application under s. 264. It has been submitted by learned counsel that the petition under s. 264 was pending when the application under s. 88 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, had been filed. We do not agree with this submission for the simple reason that what was really pending at that point of time was the application for condonation of delay, of course, along with that application the petition under s. 264 had been filed but the same could be regarded as pending only if the delay had been condoned. As the delay was not condoned, the revision petition itself was never entertained. The order of the High Court, in our opinion, does not call for any interference. Special leave petition is dismissed.
[Citation : 260 ITR 86]
