2004 (6) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Application under section 264 has been dismissed on the ground of delay - Commissioner found, while exercising his revisional jurisdiction under the aforesaid section that no sufficient cause having been made out - It appears from the records that the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting before the appellate forum and time taken for disposal of the appeal is a sufficient cause for which the party was prevented from approaching the revisional authority with the instant application because one cannot proceed simultaneously - Commissioner being the revisional authority is directed to restore the application for revision on record and to hear out the same on the merits

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing an application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Condonation of delay based on sufficient cause.
3. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding the time limit for filing applications.

Issue 1: Delay in filing an application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The judgment revolves around an application challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, Calcutta, dismissing the application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to a delay. The petitioner contended that the delay should have been condoned, as the order sought to be revised was passed on August 21, 1989, and the application for revision was filed on December 26, 1997, beyond the one-year time limit prescribed by the Act. The petitioner argued that the time taken for disposal of the appeal should have been excluded while computing the one-year period, constituting sufficient cause for the delay.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay based on sufficient cause.
The petitioner argued that there was sufficient cause for the delay and cited judicial pronouncements to support the contention that non-deliberate delay, especially when substantial justice is at stake, should be condoned. Referring to legal precedents, the petitioner emphasized that when a litigant is not at fault and substantial justice is the primary concern, delays should be condoned. The court, following the cited Supreme Court decisions, held that in cases of non-deliberate delay or no fault on the part of the litigant, a liberal view should be taken to condone such delays. The court concluded that the time taken for prosecuting the appeal bona fide constituted sufficient cause for the delay in approaching the revisional authority.

Issue 3: Interpretation of legal provisions regarding the time limit for filing applications.
The court analyzed the provisions of section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which require applications for revision to be made within one year from the date of communication of the order in question. However, a proviso allows for condonation of delay if the Commissioner is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period. The court emphasized that when sufficient cause is shown and there is no reason to doubt its validity, the delay should be condoned. The court held that the legal position established by previous judicial pronouncements should guide the decision-making process, and failure to follow such precedents could be deemed an improper exercise of jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to restore the application for revision on record and hear it on merits within three months. The judgment underscores the importance of considering sufficient cause for delay and following established legal principles in condoning delays in legal proceedings.