2016 (10) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of the revision petition before the Commissioner u/s 264 - Held that - If the contention of the petitioner is that the question of quantum addition was not part of appeal proceedings before the Commissioner and the Tribunal, the assessee had no reason to wait for the outcome of such proceedings. His contention that he was under a bonafide belief that he would succeed in such proceedings, is therefore, not in consonance with his averment that such issue never formed part of the subject matter of the appeal proceedings. On the other hand, if the assessee was following the appeal route as is contended while explaining the delay, there was no reason why such appeal should have been withdrawn. Further, even after withdrawal of the appeal from the Tribunal on 19.02.2009, the petitioner filed the revision petition nearly 10 months later on 19.12.2009. This further period of delay is nowhere explained except for the petitioner stating in general that it required to collect documents and orders. The Commissioner was therefore justified in not condoning the delay. The question of maintainability of the revision petition before the Commissioner is a contentious issue and we would reserve answer to such a question for a better case. In the present petition, we are not inclined to enter into this arena since we have already held that the revision petition was barred by limitation and unexplained delay. There is an additional reason why we are not inclined to examine this aspect and it is this. In the revision petition, the petitioner has stated virtually no grounds why the order of assessment on the question of quantum additions requires interference. As noted, the petitioner gave a written concession that a certain sum be added by way of undisclosed income. To resile from this concession, all that the petitioner stated in the revision petition was that such concession was made to buy peace and at the relevant time, required evidence could not be located and submitted. Nothing is brought on record to suggest what such relevant evidence the petitioner now has, on the basis of which, such concession could be withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that the maintainability of the revision petition be examined and the merits be left open for the Commissioner to judge. In a writ petition, where we are considering grant of discretionary relief, we refuse to be bound down by the plain parameters of the order under challenge. When we found that even if the revision petition was maintainable, the petitioner had raised virtually no acceptable grounds for setting aside the order of assessment, we would not remand the proceedings to the Commissioner to complete an empty formality.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order rejecting revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Assessment Order:
The petitioner, a partnership firm providing Angadia service, was subjected to proceedings under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act for a block period ending on 17.07.2001. The Assessing Officer accepted the petitioner's concession of undisclosed income of ?15.50 lakhs and taxed it at 60%, demanding basic tax of ?9.30 lakhs along with surcharge. The petitioner initially appealed against the surcharge but later withdrew the appeal.

2. Filing of Revision Petition:
The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the addition of ?15.50 lakhs and corresponding tax imposed by the Assessing Officer. The delay in filing the revision petition was explained as being due to a bonafide belief in the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal and the need to collect documents and records.

3. Rejection of Revision Petition:
The Commissioner rejected the revision petition on the grounds of unexplained delay and the issue already being subject to appeal before the Commissioner and the Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the revision petition was maintainable as the issue was not part of the previous appeals.

4. Court's Analysis and Decision:
The Court found the explanation for the delay insufficient, noting that the petitioner's belief in succeeding in appeal contradicted the claim that the issue was not part of the appeal proceedings. The Court also highlighted the lack of grounds in the revision petition for setting aside the assessment order. The Court refused to remand the matter for further consideration due to the lack of acceptable grounds raised by the petitioner.

5. Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the delay was not properly explained and that the petitioner failed to provide acceptable grounds for challenging the assessment order. The Court did not delve into the issue of maintainability of the revision petition, as the delay and lack of grounds for interference were sufficient reasons for dismissal.