2018 (5) TMI 1734 - HC - Income Tax

Condoantion of delay in filing an application for Revision u/s 264 - no explanation of delay for filing such petition - period for filing application for revision - Held that - As u/s 264(3) there is period of limitation of one year for filing application for revision before the Commissioner - in this case the delay is extremely small and there is a clear provision for condoning the delay - thus the right of revision could be avoided by allowing the petitioner to file additional statement explaining such delay - hence revision Petition is revived and placed back for fresh adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting Revision Petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act due to unexplained delay.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an individual, challenged an order rejecting their Revision Petition concerning assessment orders for three years due to a delay of nine days. The Assessing Officer had decided against the petitioner on the question of depreciation on a cold storage plant. The Principal Commissioner dismissed the Revision Petition citing unexplained delay, as the petitioner did not provide any reason for the delay. The period of limitation for filing such a petition is one year from the date of communication or knowledge of the order, with provisions for condoning the delay on sufficient grounds.

The court examined section 264 of the Income Tax Act, which provides for revisional powers of the Commissioner. Subsection (3) of section 264 sets a one-year limitation for filing a revision application, with the ability to condone the delay on sufficient grounds. In this case, the delay was minimal, and the petitioner did not provide any explanation for it. The court noted that the legislation allows for condoning delays and observed that the right of revision should not be defeated solely on the ground of unexplained delay, especially when the delay is insignificant. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to provide an explanation for the delay and decided to set aside the impugned order, reviving the Revision Petition for fresh adjudication on merits.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the order rejecting the Revision Petition due to unexplained delay of nine days. The court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances of the delay and allowing the petitioner an opportunity to provide an explanation. The Revision Petition was revived and placed back for fresh adjudication and disposal on merits, ensuring the petitioner's right to seek revision under section 264 of the Income Tax Act.