2019 (8) TMI 468 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 264 - reasons for non appearance before the Assessing Officer - assessee pointed out that earlier notices were issued at her Malad address which she had changed nearly three years earlier to the knowledge of the Department - Commissioner, by the impugned order, heard Revision Petition only on the ground that the assessee was granted more than sufficient opportunities despite which she failed to appear before the Assessing Officer in response to several notices - HELD THAT - Having perused the documents on record, in view of the confusion about services of earlier set of notices on the petitioner's correct address and the reasons cited by her in not being able to respond to the later notices which were duly served on her on account of her husband's ill health, we would request the Commissioner to examine her Revision Petition on merits. It is true that the petitioner not having participated before the Assessing Officer, necessary material in support of her contentions, could not be verified. Nevertheless, it would not be difficult for the Commissioner to do so while re-examining her Revision Petition. He could either call for a remand report and decide this issue himself or remand the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The petitioner's representation that she had never purchased two properties as suggested by the Assessing Officer needs further examination. Her statement that she had sold one property and purchased another, both transactions being jointly done by her and her husband having equal shares, also requires further examination. The impugned order dated 12.3.2019 passed by the Commissioner is set aside. The Commissioner is requested to examine the Revision Petition on merits and disposed of the same in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax dismissing the revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, an individual, did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2010-11, believing she had no taxable income. The Assessing Officer issued notices for scrutiny of her transactions, but some were sent to the wrong address. The petitioner's husband, who handled her finances, was ill during this time. Consequently, the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order assessing the petitioner's total income at ?67,60,000. The petitioner then filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner, explaining the reasons for non-appearance and providing details of her transactions.

The Commissioner, in the impugned order, only considered the petitioner's failure to appear before the Assessing Officer and did not address the merits of her contentions. However, the High Court directed the Commissioner to examine the Revision Petition on merits due to the confusion about notice services and the petitioner's husband's ill health. The Court noted that necessary material supporting the petitioner's contentions could not be verified due to her non-participation before the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner was instructed to re-examine the case, either by calling for a remand report or by remanding the proceedings for fresh assessment.

The Court highlighted that the petitioner's claim of not purchasing two properties as suggested by the Assessing Officer needed further examination. Additionally, her assertion of selling one property and purchasing another jointly with her husband required detailed scrutiny. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Commissioner's order and directed a thorough examination of the Revision Petition on merits, emphasizing the need for a fair disposal in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the Commissioner to re-evaluate the petitioner's case on its merits and make a decision accordingly.