2008 (11) TMI 153 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee instead of approaching Commissioner u/s 264 filing writ petition HC dismissed writ petition giving liberty to assessee to approach within 30 days from receipt of order - Delay in preferring the revision petition within a period of 30 days from the date when the copy was obtained under proviso to S. 264(3) Commissioner have power to admit an application after limitation, if sufficient case shown for delay - revisional authority should not have rejected the revision petitions on the ground that period prescribed by the Court for filing the revision petition was over

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of interest under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Waiver of interest for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81.
3. Filing and dismissal of revision petitions under section 264 of the Income-tax Act.
4. Limitation period for filing revision petitions.
5. Justification for delay in filing revision petitions.
6. Role of counsel's actions in the delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Interest under Section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appellant, M/s. Rayala Corporation Private Limited, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of typewriters and defence equipment. The issue of interest levy under section 216 for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81 was initially handled by the Settlement Commission, which remitted the matter to the assessing authority. The assessments were completed on December 6, 1993, and February 21, 1994.

2. Waiver of Interest for Assessment Years 1978-79 and 1980-81:
The appellant sought a waiver of interest for these assessment years. Without filing a revision petition, the appellant approached the court through writ petitions. The court dismissed one writ petition as infructuous but allowed the appellant to file a revision petition within one month from December 22, 2000.

3. Filing and Dismissal of Revision Petitions under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act:
The appellant was directed to file revision petitions by January 21, 2001. However, the petitions were filed on May 7, 2001, and were dismissed by the revisional authority on March 21, 2003, for being beyond the prescribed period. The appellant challenged these dismissals through writ petitions, which were subsequently dismissed, leading to the present appeals.

4. Limitation Period for Filing Revision Petitions:
As per section 264(3) of the Income-tax Act, a revision is maintainable within one year from the date of the order. However, the court had prescribed a one-month period for the appellant to file the revision petitions. The revisional authority rejected the petitions solely on the ground of exceeding this court-prescribed period, despite having the power to entertain late revisions for good and sufficient reasons.

5. Justification for Delay in Filing Revision Petitions:
The appellant justified the delay by stating that the court's operative portion was pronounced on December 22, 2000, but the full order copy was delayed due to a misplaced application in the court registry. A reapplication was made on February 27, 2001, and the copy was obtained on April 16, 2001. The revision petitions were then filed within one month from receiving the order copy.

6. Role of Counsel's Actions in the Delay:
The appellant's counsel provided an affidavit explaining the delay, citing the misplaced application and subsequent reapplication. The court accepted this explanation, recognizing that the delay was not due to any wilful default by the appellant but rather due to circumstances beyond their control. The court emphasized that a litigant should not be prejudiced due to an advocate's fault, especially when justified by sufficient reasons.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the orders of the revisional authority dated March 21, 2003, and the dismissal orders in W.P. Nos. 12408 and 12409 of 2003. The revision petitions dated May 7, 2001, were restored to file. The revisional authority was directed to consider the petitions on the merits and dispose of them expeditiously, without reference to the limitation period. The writ appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded.