9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1444 - HC - Income TaxRevision Application u/s 264 - application time bared - application for condonation of delay - HELD THAT - It is clear that the above application for condonation of delay merely states that the petitioner inadvertently failed to claim the deduction u/s 80IA(4) during the assessment proceedings leading to the order dated 22nd March 2013 of the AO. The impugned order holds that there is no explanation provided in the application as to why the delay took place in filing the Revision Application within the time prescribed under Section 264 of the Act. Therefore rejected the revision application as time barred. View taken by the CIT cannot be faulted with. This is so as the application for condonation of delay does not even attempt to explain the reason for delay in filing the revision application. It merely sets out the reasons for not claiming relief under Section 80IA of the Act in the assessment proceedings. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2011-12 based on delay in filing. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Order Dismissing Revision Application: The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dismissing the petitioner's application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dismissal was based on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay in filing the Revision Application for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Factual Background: The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 22nd March, 2013. Subsequently, on 23rd January, 2015, the petitioner filed a Revision Application under Section 264 of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax. This filing was beyond the one-year period provided in Section 264 of the Act, necessitating an application for condonation of delay. 3. Condonation of Delay Application: The application for condonation of delay highlighted that the petitioner inadvertently failed to claim a deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act during the assessment proceedings, which led to the order dated 22nd March, 2013 by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner sought to rectify this error through the Revision Application but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing. 4. Judgment: The High Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax, noting that the application for condonation of delay did not offer any reasoning for the delay in filing the revision application within the prescribed time under Section 264 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the application solely focused on the reasons for not claiming relief under Section 80IA of the Act during the assessment proceedings, failing to address the delay issue adequately. 5. Conclusion: Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision to reject the revision application as time-barred. The Court found no fault with the Commissioner's decision, as the petitioner's application for condonation of delay lacked a proper explanation for the delay in filing the revision application, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition. 6. Costs: The Court made no order as to costs in this matter.
|
