1999 (4) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Condonation of delay in filing the application
- Consideration of declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998
- Interpretation of the Scheme of 1998 provisions
- Rejection of application by the Commissioner
- Legal principles regarding pendency of revisional applications
- Comparison with legal precedents in Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. State of Bombay and Mamuda Khateen v. Beniyan Bibi

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking relief from an order passed by the Commissioner. The applicant prayed for restraint from implementing the Commissioner's order dated February 22, 1999, due to a delay in filing the application. The Commissioner rejected the application based on the delay of about six years from the date of the assessment order, citing lack of sufficient cause for condonation.

Regarding the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, the applicant filed a declaration under the scheme on January 29, 1999, along with the revisional application. The Scheme's provisions stated that certain cases, including those where no appeal or revisional application is admitted, are not covered for consideration under the Scheme.

Legal arguments presented by both parties focused on the pendency of the revisional application and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions. The appellant contended that the revisional application was pending before the Commissioner, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. State of Bombay. However, the respondent cited the Full Bench decision in Mamuda Khateen v. Beniyan Bibi, emphasizing that until the delay is condoned, the revisional application is non est.

The judgment upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that when the revisional application is not pending at the time of the declaration under the Scheme of 1998, the declaration cannot be considered. Drawing parallels with legal precedents, the court concluded that the rejection of the application was justified based on the non est status of the revisional application. Consequently, the appeal and application were dismissed, with no costs imposed.

In summary, the judgment delves into the intricacies of filing applications under the Income-tax Act, condonation of delays, and the implications on declarations under specific schemes. It highlights the importance of timely application submissions and the legal principles governing the pendency of revisional applications, drawing insights from relevant case law to support the final decision.