IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.10.2014 Date of Reserving Judgment Date of Pronouncing Judgment 09 .10.2014 27 .10.2014 CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM W.P. No.8604 of 2013 M/s.Vaata Infra Ltd., Previously known as Wescare (India) Ltd., Rep., by its Director, Mr.V.R.Raghunathan, No.16, Centoph Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ...Petitioner Vs Income Tax Officer, Company Ward-III (1) IV Floor, Room No.415, New Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. ...Respondent Prayer :-Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records in PAN AAACW2681A/Com Ward III/2001-02, dated 12.06.2012, relating to Assessment Year 2001-02 on file of respondent, quashing same and further direct respondent to issue refund of amount of Rs.70,93,382/-. For petitioner : M/s.Dr.Anita Sumanth For Respondents : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopra O R D E R petitioner company engaged in business of manufacturing, commissioning, operating and maintenance of Wind Mills and generation and distribution of power there from, has filed this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash proceedings of respondent dated 12.06.2012 under Section 220(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. impugned proceedings states that while giving effect to order of Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai, (Settlement Commission) demand of Rs.23,16,31,123/- raised vide order dated 31.03.2006, was reduced to Rs.4,72,72,689/- and that from verification of records, it was found that demand has been paid on various dates and was fully paid in July 2007 and interest payable under Section 220(2) of Act for delayed payment of tax works out to Rs.73,43,132/- and this demand may be paid immediately. 3. assessment relates to year 2001-02. respondent passed order of assessment dated 31.03.2006 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of Income Tax Act and quantified tax, surcharge and interest under Sections 234A(3), 234B(3) and 234C being total amount of Rs.23,16,31,123/-. petitioner filed application before Settlement Commission on 15.05.2006. Settlement Commission by order dated 15.05.2006, accepted revised offer of additional undisclosed income of Rs.3,34,28,41,978/-, vide letter dated 05.03.2008, with reference to assessment years 1989- 99 to 2003-04 as per annexure to said order. Settlement Commission further directed, Commissioner of Income Tax to compute total income, income tax, interest and penalty, if any, payable as per order of Settlement Commission and communicate to petitioner immediately along with demand notice and challan. petitioner was directed to pay taxes within thirty five days of receipt of demand notice. On prayer made by petitioner, they were permitted to pay tax liability in four quarterly instalments beginning from 30.04.2008 and furnish proof of tax payable to Settlement Commission and Assessing Authority within ten days of making payment. Further, it was directed that if tax is not paid within due date, tax along with interest under Section 245D(6) of Act shall be recovered. Consequent to order passed by Settlement Commission, income tax payable was computed and demand notice dated 31.03.2008, was issued to petitioner calling upon petitioner to pay Rs.2,24,74,375/-. This was followed by notice of demand under Section 156 of Income Tax Act. Subsequently, by another proceedings dated 30.06.2008, petitioner was intimated that while passing orders on 31.03.2008, tax paid by petitioner to extent of Rs.46.30 lakhs was omitted to be given credit and hence, order dated 31.03.2008, was revised and amount payable was computed as Rs.17,82,437/-. Further, order dated 30.06.2008, was modified by order dated 20.07.2009, wherein it was stated that petitioner is eligible for total refund of Rs.19,52,311/- and this will be adjusted against arrears of assessment years 1998-99, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1999-2000 and 2004-05. Subsequently, impugned proceedings dated 12.06.2012, was passed calling upon petitioner to pay interest under Section 220(2) of Income Tax Act to tune of Rs.73,43,132/-. petitioner submitted representation dated 18.06.2012, stating that tax liability has been fully paid and there is no demand which was payable and hence interest under Section 220 of Income Tax Act, does not arise and requested to pass necessary orders to nullify/rectify demand as 'nil'. Further, petitioner requested to process refunds and issue same together with applicable interest pointing out that petitioner has been facing severe financial crunch and income tax has been paid with great difficulty by disposing of assets/borrowings. Thereafter, petitioner filed W.P.No.27071 of 2012, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to implement order dated 24.03.2008, passed by Settlement Commission and grant refund of tax as detailed in representation dated 04.08.2009. In affidavit filed in support of said writ petition, it was stated that notwithstanding facts, respondent raised demand notice under Section 220 of Income Tax Act dated 12.06.2012, (impugned order in this writ petition) and petitioner was forced to once again clarify all points repeatedly and inspite of same, respondent has not acted as per directions of Settlement Commission, whose orders are final and binding and no refund has been granted and therefore, petitioner has approached this Court for said relief. 4. In counter affidavit filed by respondent in said Writ Petition, it was submitted that business loss eligible to be carried forward for preceding eight assessment years has been arrived at and duly set off in accordance with provisions of Income Tax Act. Petitioner's petitions for rectifications in various years hav ebeen considered and after giving effect to order of Hon'ble ITSC, refunds in respect of Assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-02 amounting to Rs.22,52,311'/- has been adjusted against demand payable by petitioner. Further, refunds due to petitioner for assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12 for sum of Rs.49,53,180/- have also been adjusted against demand payable by petitioner for assessment year 2009-10 and earlier years. petitioner's contention of further refunds, if any, needs to be reconciled and worked out after due consideration of pending proceedings and adjustments as assessee's issues cover period of 10 years from assessment year 2000-01 to 2009-10. Even otherwise, after reconciling all such TDS claims/rectifications same is to be adjusted against pending demand of Rs.3,27,18,094/- as per due procedure and process of law enshrined in I.T., Act. Further, loss of about 31.06 crores including those carried forward by these two years has been allowed to be carried forward and same is set off against business income for 2009-10. Hence, department has duly discharged its august duty with due diligence considering https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ huge quantum of pending demand. 5. Though respondent Department took above stand in counter affidavit, learned Senior counsel for petitioner submitted that no such order has been communicated to petitioner by respondent. In such view of matter, this Court by order dated 11.12.2012, directed respondents to pass speaking order and communicate same to petitioner so as to enable it to work out remedy in accordance with law, time frame of twelve weeks was stipulated. Pursuant there to, order dated 06.02.2013, was issued to petitioner stating that order of Settlement Commission pertains to assessment years 1998-99 to 2003-04 and on giving effect to same, total demand has reduced/or resulted in refunds and same was mentioned in annexure enclosed along with order. Further, it was stated that status of demand or refund in respect of subsequent assessment years were furnished in annexure B enclosed along with order. Further, petitioner was informed that in case if any further clarification is needed, petitioner may approach respondent independently for each assessment year. That after adjustment of refund, there is pending demand of Rs.2,43,14,969/- in assessment year 2009-10 and demand under Section 220(2) of Rs.73,43,132/-, in assessment year 2001-02. Further, petitioner was informed that refunds pertaining to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, can be determined and issued on completion of proceedings, which are pending and stayed by this Court. By subsequent communication dated 27.02.2013, respondent furnished details with regards to amount payable/refundable to petitioner for assessment years 1998-99 to 2010-11 and said communication contained two annexures giving details. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation dated 04.03.2013, stating that order passed under Section 220 is clearly in contravention of provisions of Income Tax Act and derides power of Settlement Commission by reopening matters already settled by it and order under Section 220, is attempted to bye-pass settlement order and subsequent order of Commissioner and therefore, does not confirm to law. This was followed by another representation dated 08.03.2013. In present Writ Petition, challenge is to demand of interest under Section 220(2) of Income Tax Act. 6. learned counsel for petitioner after elaborately referring to factual position and referring to relevant portion of order passed by Settlement Commission submitted that provision of Section 220(2) of Income Tax Act, would not stand attracted to facts of petitioner's case, since respondent themselves admitted that demand raised has been paid on various dates on or before 31.07.2007 and consequential demand raised pursuant to order passed by Commission, was made only on 31.03.2008 and remittance having been effected by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner eight months prior to order of assessment, there is no delay in remittance and no interest is leviable. Further, it is submitted that order of assessment having telescoped into order of settlement, notice of demand under Section 156 of Income Tax Act was issued on 31.03.2008 and thus, notice of demand/order of assessment dated 31.03.2006, thus cease to be operative, as there can be only one legal enforcable demand in respect of assessment. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Section 245D(4) of Act, order of Settlement Commission is consolidated order that addresses total remittance to be effected by petitioner on account of tax, interest and penalty and therefore, no further levies are envisaged in light of Section 245(6A) of Act. In any event, impugned order purporting to raise demand over and above demand directed to be made by Settlement Commission is obvious of jurisdiction. Further, it is reiterated that disputed demand having been paid before 31.07.2007 itself, which has been admitted by respondent, question of demanding interest will not arise. Further, it is submitted that Income Tax Act provides for remedy by way of waiver of interest in terms of Section 220(2) of Income Tax Act. However, same would be eficatious remedy only in event of levy being in accordance with law and in instant case, when Section 220(2) of Income Tax Act itself is not applicable to petitioner, question availing remedy under Act does not arise. On above grounds, learned counsel appearing for petitioner seeks for setting aside impugned proceedings. 7. learned Standing counsel for respondent after referring to order passed by Settlement Commission submitted that order dated 31.03.2008, is order consequent to order of Settlement Commission computing income tax payable as per direction and interest demanded in impugned order is for period from 01.04.2006 to July 2007 and not for any subsequent period or anterior period. Further, it is submitted that in terms of direction issued by this Court in earlier Writ Petition, speaking order was passed by respondent dated 06.02.2013 and all details were furnished in form of annexures, which was also once again communicated by order dated 27.02.2013 and details in respect of each of assessment years were furnished in form of annexure and in tabulated statement, details for each assessment year was furnished, namely, total demand before order of Settlement Commission; demand or refund after giving effect to order of Settlement Commission; demand or refund arising out of subsequent modification orders; and remarks in respect of each assessment year. Further, it is submitted that if petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order, petitioner ought to have availed remedy under Section 264 of Income Tax Act and without availing same, Writ Petition is not maintainable. On above submissions, learned counsel seeks to sustain impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings. 8. In reply, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that time starts to run once notice under Section 156 is being issued and learned counsel reiterated that department themselves have accepted that payments have been effected as of July 2007 and therefore, question of levy of interest does not arise under Section 220(2) of Income Tax Act. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused materials placed on record. 10. challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 12.06.2012, by which respondent has demanded interest under Section 220(2) of Income Tax Act for delayed payment of tax. Sub-section (2) of Section 220 of Act states that if amount specified in any notice of demand under Section 156 is not paid within period limited under sub-section (1) of Section 220, assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest for every month or part of month comprised in period commencing from day immediately following end of period mentioned in sub-section(1) and ending with day on which amount is paid. first proviso under sub-section (2) of Section 220 states that where as result of order under Section 154 or 155 or 250 or 254 or 260 or 262 or 264 or order of Settlement Commission under sub-Section (4) of Section 245D, amount on which interest was payable under Section 220(2) had been reduced, interest shall be reduced accordingly and excess interest paid, if any, shall be refunded. second proviso states that in respect of any period commencing on or before 31st day of March, 1989, and ending after that date, such interest shall, in respect of so much of such period as falls after that date, be calculated at rate of one and one-half per cent of every month or part thereof. In terms of Section 220, assessee will be treated as assessee in default when he does not pay tax liability in respect of demand raised by demand notice under Section 156. There is difference between interest payable under Section 220 and interest payable under Section 234B, which deals with interest for defaults in payment of advance tax, as interest under Section 220 continuous still all outstanding demand including interest is cleared, while Section 234B would be chargeable for short-fall in payment of advance tax till date of regular assessment. Therefore, date of intimation under Section 143(1) of Act would be relevant for purpose of interest under Section 220 of Act. It has been held that rationale behind provisions of Section 220 of Act to levy interest on delayed payment of tax is not to penalise party but to make provision for compensation for department on failure of assessee to make payment on first notice of demand [Vikrant Tyres Ltd., vs. ITO reported in (2001) 247 ITR 821 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (SC)]. Therefore, unless there is default in payment of outstanding tax, question of levy of interest would not arise. 11. order of assessment was passed on 31.03.2006 for assessment year 2001-02 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of Income Tax Act. Against said order of assessment, petitioner preferred application before Settlement Commission for settlement of their case under Section 245C(1) of Income Tax Act. Settlement Commission by order dated 18.03.2008, settled issue by accepting revised offer of additional undisclosed income of Rs.3,34,28,41,978/-, by letter dated 05.03.2008, with reference to assessment years 1989-99 to 2003-04. Settlement Commission further directed that in view of statutory time limit prescribed under Section 245D(4A) of Act and direction of this Court to dispose of application before 31.03.2008, Settlement Commission directed Commissioner of Income Tax to compute total income, income tax, interest and penalty, if any, payable as per order of Commission and communicate to applicant immediately along with demand notice and challen under intimation to Commission. Consequent to order passed by Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle III(3), Chennai passed order dated 31.03.2008, computing income payable and directed petitioner to pay said amount as per demand notice. This was followed by notice of demand dated 31.03.2008, under Section 156 of Act, notice of demand dated 31.03.2008 was revised by subsequent order dated 30.06.2008 and further revised by order dated 20.07.2009. It is thereafter impugned communication dated 12.06.2012 was sent to petitioner demanding interest under Section 220(2) of Act. petitioner submitted representation on 18.06.2012, requesting to process application for refund and issue same together with applicable interest. Further, it was stated that tax liability has been fully paid and there is no demand which was payable and hence interest under Section 220 does not arise and requested respondent to pass necessary orders to nullify/rectify demand. petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.27071 of 2012, praying for direction upon respondents to implement order dated 24.03.2008, passed by Settlement Commission and grant refund of tax as detailed in representation dated 04.08.2009. 12. learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that one of grounds raised in Writ Petition is by stating that inspite of petitioner placing all facts and Settlement Commission having finally settled case, yet respondent raised demand under Section 220 of Income Tax Act. petitioner also filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.27007 of 2012, challenging notice dated 05.03.2012, insofar as it calls upon petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 148 of Income Tax Act should not be initiated and consequently, to direct respondent to implement order of Settlement Commission. However, copy of order passed in W.P.No.27007 of 2012, has not been produced before this Court. 13. Be that as it may, though petitioner in W.P.No.27071 of 2012, sought for mandamus to implement order of Settlement Commission and grant refund, petitioner restricted prayer sought for in Writ Petition and requested this Court to direct respondents to pass speaking order and communicate same to petitioner so as to enable them to work out their remedies in accordance with law. This Court recording statement on behalf of petitioner disposed of Writ Petition by order dated 11.12.2012, which reads as follows:- petitioner seeks writ of Mandamus to direct respondent to implement order dated 24.3.2008 passed by Income Tax Settlement Commissioner, Additional Bench in Settlement Application No.TN/CN 1/06-07/13/IT, dated 24.3.2008 and grant refund of tax as detailed in representation dated 4.8.2009 filed by petitioner. 2. On notice, Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Senior Standing counsel for respondents informs Court that case of petitioner was considered and refund was ordered, however amount which has to be refunded has been adjusted towards tax liability. manner in which tax was adjusted has been set out in paragraph (3) of counter affidavit, which reads as follows: "3) It is submitted that business loss eligible to be carried forward for preceding eight assessment years has been arrived at and duly set off in accordance with provisions of IT Act. Petitioner's petitions for rectifications in various years have been considered and after giving effect to order of Hon'ble ITSC, refunds in respect of Asst. Years 2000-2001 and 2001-02 amounting to Rs.22,52,311/- has been adjusted against demand payable by petitioner. Further, refunds due to petitioner for asst. years 2008-09 and 2011-12 for sum of Rs.49,53,180/- have also been adjusted against demand payable by petitioner for AY 2009-10 and earlier years. petitioner's contention of further refunds, if any, needs to be reconciled and worked out after due consideration of pending proceedings and adjustments as assessee's issues cover period of 10 years from A.Y.2000-01 to 2009-10. Even otherwise, after reconciling all such TDS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claims/rectifications same is to be adjusted against pending demand of Rs.3,27,18,094/- as per due procedure and process of law enshrined in I.T. Act. Further loss of about 31.06 crores including those carried forward by these two years has been allowed to be carried forward and same is set off against business income for 2009-10. Hence department has duly discharged its august duty with due diligence considering huge quantum of pending demand." 3. However, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner pleads that no such order has been communicated to petitioner by respondents. 4. In such view of matter, respondents are directed to pass speaking order and communicate same to petitioner, so as to enable it to workout remedy in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed by respondents within period of twelve weeks. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 14. Thus, it appears that when counter affidavit was filed in earlier Writ Petition by respondent setting out details, petitioner though fit to restrict relief sought for in Writ Petition and requested respondent to communicate speaking order to them so as to enable them to work out their remedies in accordance with law. 15. It is to be noted that even as on date, when W.P.No.27071 of 2012, was filed before this Court on 28th September 2012, impugned order in this Writ Petition dated 12.06.2012, demanding interest under Section 220 of Income Tax Act was communicated to petitioner and well within knowledge of petitioner, yet petitioner did not choose to challenge impugned order dated 12.06.2012, in earlier Writ Petition. Though, it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that demand of interest was in fact contested by raising it as one of grounds in Writ Petition, petitioner did not canvass contention in earlier writ petition and restricted relief based on which Writ Petition was disposed of by aforementioned order. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court in earlier Writ Petition dated 11.12.2012, respondent passed order dated 06.02.2013, which reads as follows:- PAN.AAACW2681A/Co.Ward III(1)/2012-13 Date 06.02.2013 To Principal Officer, M/s.Wescare (India) Ltd., No.16, Cenotaph Road, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Teynampet, Chennai 18. Sir/Madam, Sub: Your plea before Hon'ble High Court to implement Order passed by Hon'ble Settlement Commission & consequent request to grant refund for relevant years involved Reg. Ref: Order of Hon'ble High Court of Madras, dated 11.12.2012 in W.P.No.27071 of 2012. ***** Please refer to above Hon'ble High Court of Madras has disposed your petition by directing this office to give speaking communication to your goodselves with regard to relevant subject of giving effect to Settlement Commission order and issue of consequent refunds. relevant Income Tax Settlement Commission order pertains to Assessment Year 1998-99 to 2003-04 and on giving effect to same total demand has reduced/ (or) resulted in refunds and same is as per annexure 'A' enclosed. status of demand or refund in respect of subsequent assessment years is also detailed in annexure 'B' enclosed. In case, if any further clarification is needed you may approach undersigned independently for each assessment year. It may be seen that after issue/adjustment of refunds, there is pending demand of Rs.2,43,14,969/- in assessment year 2009-10 and demand under Section 220(2) of Rs.73,43,132/- in assessment year 2001-02. refunds pertaining to assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07 can be determined and issued on completion of proceedings which have presently been stayed by Hon'ble High Court. Yours faithfully (Aarthi Srinivasan) Income Tax Officer Company Ward III(1), Chennai. 16. Thereafter, petitioner made another representation dated 19.02.2013, requesting for copies of documents and same was communicated to petitioner by proceedings dated 27.02.2013, giving details in respect of each of assessment years from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessment year 1998-99 onwards. 17. In such circumstances, it is to be noted that respondent has complied with directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petition by passing speaking order and communicating same to petitioner. Further information sought for by petitioner with regard to various assessment orders passed for each of assessment years was also communicated by letter dated 27.02.2013. Along with said letter, two annexures were appended as annexures and B in which tabulated statement was given mentioning assessment year total demand before order of Settlement Commission; demand or refund after giving effect to order of Settlement Commission; demand or refund arising out of subsequent modification orders and remarks in respect of each of assessment years. Therefore, necessary details have been communicated to petitioner. If petitioner is aggrieved then petitioner has to work out remedy in accordance with law. In fact, such liberty was reserved to petitioner when earlier Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 11.12.2012. 18. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for Department that interest, which is now demanded, is for period from 01.04.2006 to July 2007. In fact, Settlement Commission while passing order dated 18.03.2008, settled case of petitioner and specifically directed Commissioner of Income Tax to compute total income, income tax, interest and penalty, if any payable. contention of petitioner is that respondent have admitted in impugned communication that demand has been paid on various dates and was fully paid in July 2007, therefore, question of demanding interest does not arise. 19. As pointed out in case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd., vs. ITO, (supra), condition precedent under Section 220 is that there should be demand notice and there should be default in paying amount so demanded within time stipulated in notice. It is not case of petitioner that tax payable was paid without any default. contention of petitioner is that tax liability was paid well before 31.07.2007 and demand having been issued on 21.03.2008, levy of interest under Section 220(2) of Act is not in accordance with law. It is to be noted that communication dated 31.03.2008, is consequence to order passed by Settlement Commission dated 18.03.2008. Therefore, interpretation given by petitioner for computation of period for purpose of levy of interest cannot be adjudicated in Writ Petition and petitioner has to necessarily avail remedy available under Act. 20.Section 264 of Act provides for revision of other years other than order to which Section 263 of Act applies, by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authority subordinate to Commissioner and Commissioner either on his own motion or on application by assessee for revision, call for records of any proceedings under act in which any such order has been passed and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be meant and subject to provisions of Act pass such orders thereon not being order prejudicial to assessee. 21.In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 264 of Act, in case Application for refund by assessee, Application must be made within one year from date on which order in question was communicated to assessee or date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier. proviso under Sub-section (3) of 264 of Act gives powers to Commissioner to admit Application after expiry of period of one year on assessee saying that it was presented by sufficient cause from making Application within period stipulated. 22.Sub-section (4) of section 264 of Act, enumerates cases in which Commissioner shall not revise any order in exercise of powers under Section 264 of Act. Admittedly, petitioner's case does not fall within any of three clauses viz. clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Section 264 (4) of Act. That apart, it has to be pointed out that petitioner does not seek to challenge order passed by Settlement Commission, but challenge is essentially to demand of interest broadly on three grounds. 23.Firstly by contending that respondents themselves having stated that from verification of records though tax due has been fully paid in July, 2007, interest under section 220 (2) of Act cannot be demanded. second ground being that demand under Section 156 of Act, consequent upon order of Settlement Commission has been raised only on 31.03.2008 and remittance of amount has been effected in advance and Section 220(2) of Act would not be attracted. Thirdly, that direction issued in earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.2709 of 2012 has not been complied with, wherein direction was issued by this Court to respondent to pass speaking order and communicate same to petitioner so as to enable petitioner to work out remedy in accordance with law. 24.In preceding paragraphs it has been held that order and direction issued by this Court has been complied with and details were furnished and clarification sought for by petitioner was also replied. Therefore, on said ground, impugned order cannot be put to challenge. other two grounds of challenge are not pure questions of law but mixed questions of fact and law, which cannot be adjudicated in Writ Petition. consistent plea of Department is that interest is for period of default https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which is from 01.04.2006 to July 2007 and not for any subsequent or anterior period. Thus, those two issues have to be thrashed out by petitioner by exhausting remedy available under provisions of Act, which is available under Section 264 of Act. 25.In result, Writ Petition is disposed of by directing petitioner to file Revision before Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of Act, within period of three weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order and if such Revision is filed, Revisional Authority shall entertain Revision Petition, without rejecting same on ground of limitation and consider same on merits and in accordance with law, without in any manner being influenced by any observation contained in this order and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pbn To Income Tax Officer, Company Ward-III (1) IV Floor, Room No.415, New Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. 1 CC to Dr.Anita Sumanth, Advocate SR.No. 50653 W.P. No.8604 of 2013 PVR (CO) PSI (07.11.2014) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vaata Infra Ltd. Previously known as Wescare (India) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Company Ward-III(1), Chennai