2017 (6) TMI 1273 - HC - Income Tax

Revision filed u/s 264 delayed by about 200 days - condonation of delay - Held that - Proviso to SubSection 3 of Section 264 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to entertain the Revision filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation upon sufficient cause being shown. The said exercise, it appears has not been embarked upon by the Commissioner. The Revision can only be entertained on merits only if the delay is condoned. Without condoning the delay even the Commissioner could not have observed anything on merits. No separate application for condonation of delay was filed, however, the request to condone the delay was made in the Revision application itself. It appears that no reasonings have been given by the Commissioner for not condoning the delay. It would be appropriate to set aside the said order and direct the Commissioner to reconsider the aspect of delay.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging the legality of Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, delay in filing Revision under Section 264, Commissioner's failure to condone the delay, lack of reasoning for not condoning the delay, requirement for a separate application for condonation of delay.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Assessment Order:
The Petitioner challenged the legality of the Assessment order dated 31st March, 2014 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The Revision filed under Section 264 of the Act faced a delay of about 200 days, leading to the Commissioner observing and questioning the delay before adjudicating the Revision.

2. Delay in Filing Revision:
The Commissioner, in the impugned order, did not delve upon the explanation provided by the Petitioner for condonation of delay. The Proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 264 empowers the Commissioner to entertain the Revision beyond the prescribed period upon showing sufficient cause, a step seemingly missed by the Commissioner in this case.

3. Failure to Condone Delay:
The Revision could only be considered on merits if the delay was condoned. The absence of condonation of delay prevented the Commissioner from making any observations on the merits of the Revision. The lack of reasoning by the Commissioner for not condoning the delay was noted as a significant omission.

4. Requirement for Separate Application:
Although no separate application for condonation of delay was filed, the request for condonation was included in the Revision application itself. However, the Court emphasized the necessity for a distinct application for condonation of delay, specifying reasons for the delay in filing the Revision within the stipulated period.

5. Court's Order:
The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order, instructing the Petitioner to file a separate application for condonation of delay within two weeks, providing reasons for the delay. The Commissioner was directed to reconsider the delay aspect, decide on the application for condonation, and proceed with the Revision on its merits in accordance with the law, emphasizing that no arguments on merits were considered during this order.