2019 (8) TMI 804 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing application for Revision u/s 264 - power of CIT to condone delay - similar matter for two assessment years - peculiar facts and circumstances - HELD THAT - One of the peculiar facts and circumstances turns on the aspect that writ petitioner's income that has been processed, primarily turns on agricultural income. It may not be necessary to advert in great detail to the other peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case on hand. Suffice to say that one technical aspect of the matter is, while one revision is within time, the other was filed with a delay, where undisputedly, the revisional authority is vested with powers to condone delay without any statutory cap qua length of delay. There is no disputation or disagreement that the impugned orders or in other words, impugned order-I and impugned order-II arise out of common factual matrix and only the assessment years are different (obviously numerical values are also different). Therefore, this Court, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case on hand, is of the considered view that the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner that delay could have been condoned for one assessment year viz., 2012-13 and both matters could have been taken up and heard out on merits deserves to be accepted. Delay condoned with cost of ₹ 12,500/- each - Matter restored before CIT for disposal on their own merit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment orders for two different years under the Income Tax Act, 1961 not challenged through statutory appeal.
2. Rejection of revision petitions by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax based on delay.
3. Lack of condonation of delay by the revisional authority.
4. Submission regarding desirability of hearing both revision petitions together.
5. Argument on the statutory powers of appellate authority to condone delay.
6. Consideration of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Decision on setting aside impugned orders and directing rehearing of revisions.
8. Imposition of costs on the petitioner and directions for disposal of revision petitions.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras dealt with writ petitions arising from the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The petitioner did not challenge the assessment orders through statutory appeal but filed revision petitions before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The revision petitions were rejected primarily due to delay, with the revisional authority not exercising its power to condone the delay. The petitioner argued that both revision petitions should have been heard together, emphasizing the desirability of condoning the delay for one assessment year. The Revenue Counsel contended that the petitioner should have pursued statutory appeals and cannot now contest the rejection of revision petitions based on delay. However, the court noted the unique circumstances, especially regarding agricultural income, and decided to set aside the impugned orders without expressing any view on merits to facilitate rehearing of both revisions together.

The court directed the petitioner to pay costs and specified that upon payment, the revisional authority should dispose of the revision petitions promptly and within a set timeframe. Failure to pay costs within the stipulated period would result in the dismissal of the writ petitions. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and emphasized the need for a fair hearing of the revision petitions. The court's decision aimed to ensure a just and expeditious resolution of the issues raised in the writ petitions, emphasizing compliance with legal procedures and timelines.