2021 (12) TMI 1468 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 264 after eight years - eligible reasons for delay - HELD THAT - As Petitioner submits that due to mistake he had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the assessment order in question and it appears from record that the said appeal was dismissed on 25th September, 2014 as it appears from Annexure P-5 to the writ petition and even if the explanation of the petitioner is accepted the time was consumed by him in the appeal in that case also from the order of the Tribunal it is after almost seven years in approaching the writ court and this inordinate delay itself is sufficient ground for refusal to entertain the writ petition. In justification of delay of this seven years, petitioner wants to rely on Paragraphs 7 and 8 of this writ petition but we are not convinced with the same since the writ court is a court of equity and it is for those who are vigilant and diligent to their rights and not for those who sleep over their rights. The impugned order being passed by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but he did not avail that opportunity and he asked further adjournment. Considering these facts, this writ petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenging an order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act after a significant delay.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 26th February, 2013, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after a delay of eight years. The petitioner claimed that the delay was due to mistakenly filing an appeal before the Tribunal against the assessment order in question. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 25th September, 2014. The court noted that even if the explanation for the delay was accepted, the time consumed by the petitioner in pursuing the appeal was significant, leading to a delay of almost seven years in approaching the writ court. The court emphasized that the delay itself was sufficient grounds for refusing to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner's attempt to justify the delay by referring to specific paragraphs in the writ petition was not accepted by the court. The court highlighted that the writ court is a court of equity meant for those who are vigilant and diligent in asserting their rights, not for those who neglect or delay in doing so. Additionally, the court observed that the impugned order dated 26th February, 2013, was passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, but the petitioner did not avail that opportunity and instead sought further adjournment.

Therefore, considering the significant delay in approaching the court, the High Court dismissed the writ petition (WPA 4082 of 2021) challenging the order passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act.