2018 (12) TMI 412 - HC - Income Tax

Delay in filing the Revision Application u/s 264 by 198 days - condonation of delay - Held that - As explained by the petitioner by pointing out that there was huge work load of assessment under Section 153A of the Act, under an erroneous advise of the tax consultant, the assessee had inadvertently offered interest income under misconception of law and that the main person looking after the affairs of new tax consultant was indisposed for about 6 to 7 months due to serious back injury. When the issues of technical and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the course of substantial justice would normally prevail. In the present case, when the delay was even otherwise not inordinate and was explained in the above terms, the Commissioner should have condoned the same. In the previous round, the High Court had remanded the proceedings before the Commissioner by allowing the petitioner to file separate application for condonation of delay and requested the Commissioner to consider such application. Perhaps this second round of litigation could have been avoided. Be that as it may, we allow the petitioner s applications for condonation of delay

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing request for condonation of delay in filing a Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard two petitions for final disposal, both arising from a common background. The petitioner challenged an order by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, dismissing the request for condonation of delay in filing a Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Previously, the petitioner's attempt to persuade the Commissioner to condone the delay had failed, leading to a writ petition being filed. The High Court had quashed the Commissioner's order, allowing the petitioner to file a separate application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner rejected this subsequent application, prompting the current petition. The High Court, after hearing both parties and examining the record, found that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the applications for condonation of delay. The delay in filing the Revision Application was 198 days, which the petitioner explained was due to a heavy workload, erroneous advice from a tax consultant, and the indisposition of the person handling the affairs of a new consultant. The Court emphasized the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, especially when the delay was not excessive and was adequately explained. Given the circumstances, the Court allowed the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay and directed the Commissioner to expeditiously decide the Revision Applications on their merits, aiming to avoid further unnecessary litigation. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.