- (1.) The present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income-tax, Faizabad, respondent No. 2 to decide the revision or to stay the demand of recovery till the pendency of the revision application. A further writ, order or direction declaring the revision application of the petitioner dated May 8, 2006, filed on May 9, 2006, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Faizabad, respondent No. 2, for the assessment year 2003-04 stands allowed. The petitioner also seeks a writ, order or direction, declaring the time limit of one year prescribed under section 264(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as mandatory in nature and directing the Income-tax Officer, Basti, respondent No. 3, not to take any coercive measure for realising the demand arising out of the assessment order till the pendency of the revision application. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows.
(2.) The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of rice and trading of paddy, wheat, rice oil-cake, etc. For the financial year 2003-04, the petitioner had disclosed its income at Rs. 6,890. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Income-tax Officer, Basti, respondent No. 3, and filed its return. Respondent No. 3 passed an assessment order on March 20, 2006, under section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 10,03,280. A notice of demand dated March 20, 2006, under section 156 of the Act was also issued.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved against the assessment order, the petitioner preferred a revision under section 264 of the Act on May 8, 2006, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Faizabad-respondent No. 2. The said revision is pending before respondent No. 2. During the pendency of the revision, recovery proceeding has been initiated by the Income-tax Officer, Basti-respondent No. 3. Proceedings under section 221(1) of the Act for non-deposit of tax was also initiated. As a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the application for revision has been made by the petitioner, i.e., March 31, 2008, had expired, in view of the specific provision under section 264(6) of the Act which enjoined upon the Commissioner of Income-tax, Faizabad, to decide the revision within a stipulated period, he had become functus officio and, therefore, no order is being passed on the revision preferred by the petitioner. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this court for redressal of its grievance.;