JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout, and a. by an appropriate writ, order and/or direction the respondent be directed to decide the application dated 28.10.2010 (Annex.8) preferred by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 at the earliest considering petitioner’s age of 85 years; and b. the refunds which are due and pending qua the petitioner for Assessment Year 2006-07 may kindly be ordered to be released to the petitioner; c. any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the Case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The bone of contention in the present case is the Assessment Order dated 26.09.2008 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2006- 07, raising a demand from the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said Assessment Order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 13.10.2008, which partly allowed on 21.01.2009, giving certain directions for recalculation. 2.1. The petitioner sought refund of certain amount on the basis of such recalculation, which as per the petitioner, ought to have been made in pursuance of the order of the CIT (Appeals), however, the prayer for refund was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jodhpur, as was not effective, vide the communication dated 11.05.2010. 2.2. The petitioner again moved an application dated 28.10.2010 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) regarding the calculation mistake and sought refund of an amount of Rs.4,67,761/- in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the CIT (Appeals). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action of the respondents is contrary to the basic order, which has been passed by the CIT (Appeals). He further submitted that as per Section 155 (14) of the Act of 1961, the Assessing Officer is bound to make amendments in the return of income submitted by the petitioner when the application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 is submitted as per law. He further submitted that as per Section 155 (14) of the Act of 1961, the Assessing Officer is bound to make amendments in the return of income submitted by the petitioner when the application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 is submitted as per law. He also submitted that it is clear from a bare perusal of the provision that it implies that if an application is made with respect to the modified calculation in light of the order of the CIT (Appeals), then the same has to be allowed and return has to be amended. 3.1. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards the relevant excerpt of Section 155 (14) of the Act of 1961, which reads as under: “Where in the assessment for any previous year or in any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143 for any previous year, credit for tax deducted or collected in accordance with the provisions of section 199 or, as the case may be, section 206C has not been given on the ground that the certificate furnished under section 203 or section 206C was not filed with the return and subsequently such certificate is produced before the Assessing Officer within two years from the end of the assessment year in which such income is assessable, the Assessing Officer shall amend the order of assessment or any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143, as the case may be, and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto.” 3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that on bare reading of the provision, the income tax return of the petitioner was to be amended as per law, and once such application was submitted under Section 154 of the Act of 1961, it was the duty of the respondents to have made due determination and to pass appropriate orders in this regard. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 has already been submitted before the respondent authority within the prescribed period and thus, the impugned non-consideration amounts to an illegality on the part of the respondents. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable; it is admitted that the CIT (Appeals) has disposed of the assessee, with the following remarks: “Considering all the material facts and the unavoidable necessity of resorting to estimation of the Fair Market Value as on 1-4-1981, and also the fact that the value of the building can be estimated with reasonable accuracy as on 1-4-1981 as also on the date of sale, it would be reasonable if the Fair Market Value of the whole property consisting of the land and the building as on 1-4-1981 is determined as under- 1- The value of the building be estimate on the date of sale by adopting the same criteria as applied for determining the value by the Valuation Officer at Rs.609893/-. 2- The value of the building so determined as on the date of the sale as above, after suitable adjustment for depreciation, be reduced from the full sale consideration, which remains undisputed as the Assessing Officer has not disputed the same, to get the value of the land as on the date of sale. 3- The value of the land as on the date of the sale as determined above shall be projected backward by applying cost inflation index for the year of sale and 1981-82 to determine the Fair Market Value of the land as on 1-4-1981. 4- The value of the property consisting of the land and the building as on 1-4-1981 shall be determined as the sum of the Fair Market Value of the land as on 1-4-1981 determined as above and the value of the building as on 1-4-1981 determined at Rs.6,09,893/- by the Valuation Officer. This shall be taken as Fair Market Value of the Property of the assessee as on 1-4-1981 as a substitute for the cost of acquisition of the property for the purpose of the determination of the taxable capital gain as the assessee has exercised the option of adopt the Fair Market Value of the land as on first day of April 1981 as permissible u/s 55(2) (b) (ii) of the I.T. Act 1961”. 5.1. 5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that CIT (Appeals), has granted the aforesaid relief, while further directing that the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 of the assessee’s property was to be determined, and in the event that the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 determined as above is lower than the one declared by the assessee in the return of income at Rs.30,20,000/-, the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 shall be taken at Rs.30,20,000/-. 5.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the assessee in the return of income while calculating long term capital gains has herself taken the cost of acquisition of land & building as on 01.04.1981 to be Rs.30,20,000/-, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer; the pertinent date is thus 01.04.1981; hence, the returned income has to be considered Rs.30,20,000/-. 5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the application filed before the Assessing Officer before the decision of the CIT (Appeals), has been considered and the cost of acquisition has to be taken as Rs.37,72,636/-; the indexed cost of acquisition has also been taken as Rs.1,5,00,9400/-. 5.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the Assessing Officer rather than proceeding on the given details, has proceeded as per the order of the CIT (Appeals). He further submitted that the application was submitted by the petitioner after passing of the order dated 05.02.2009 and requested to adopt the cost of acquisition of whole property as on 01.04.1981 to be Rs.34,29,571/-, which was replied in the manner that the effect to the order of the CIT (Appeals) has already been given. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herself has slept over her rights as the order of the CIT (Appeals) which was to be given effect to was 21.01.2009 and the rejection order was dated 21.10.2010, and therefore, any challenge to the rejection order in the garb of the pending application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961, after eight years of delay, cannot be accepted in law. 7. The consideration made on 21.10.2010 was in pursuance of the order of the CIT (Appeals), whereby the said order has been given effect to. 7. The consideration made on 21.10.2010 was in pursuance of the order of the CIT (Appeals), whereby the said order has been given effect to. Any belated challenge after a lapse of eight years cannot be permitted under the law, as if it is so permitted, it would amount to opening the pandora’s box. 8. This Court observes that as per the order of the CIT (Appeals), the respondents have arrived at a satisfaction about the rate on that particular date and since the satisfaction on that particular date has been arrived at, then substantial compliance under the law has been made. 9. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the instant petition. 10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed . All pending applications stand disposed of.