{"id":28578,"date":"2022-07-18T17:40:14","date_gmt":"2022-07-18T12:10:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/klj-organic-ltd-v-cit-it-2022-444-itr-62-286-taxman-282-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2022-07-18T17:40:14","modified_gmt":"2022-07-18T12:10:14","slug":"klj-organic-ltd-v-cit-it-2022-444-itr-62-286-taxman-282-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/klj-organic-ltd-v-cit-it-2022-444-itr-62-286-taxman-282-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"KLJ Organic Ltd. v. CIT (IT) (2022) 444 ITR 62 \/ 286 Taxman 282 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Commissioner (IT) rejected the revision petition filed by the assessee under section\u00a0264\u00a0of the\u00a0Income-tax Act, 1961\u00a0on the ground of delay in filing the petition. The assessee filed a writ petition submitting that under a bona fide mistake of law and relying on the earlier orders passed by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) in its favour on the similar issue, it had filed and pursued an appeal under section\u00a0248\u00a0under the belief that the order was appealable and hence the delay. Allowing the petition the Court held that if the time spent by the assessee in prosecuting the appeal under section\u00a0248\u00a0was excluded, the revision petition filed under section\u00a0264\u00a0would be within the limitation period. On the facts section\u00a014\u00a0of the\u00a0Limitation Act, 1963, was attracted and the assessee was entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (IT) to decide on the merits. (AY. 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Limitation-Pursuing appeal mistakenly-Delay in filing revision petition-Period spent in prosecuting appeal excluded-Matter remanded to Commissioner. [S. 246A, 248,  Limitation Act, 1963, S. 14, Art, 226]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7qW","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28578","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28578"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28578\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28579,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28578\/revisions\/28579"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}