2019 (9) TMI 1209 - HC - Income Tax

Application filed by the petitioner u/s 264 - filed beyond the time stipulated u/s 264 - HELD THAT - Intimation u/s 143(1) raising the demand was issued on 20.10.2008 itself. According to the petitioner, they are not aware of such intimation. On the other hand, it is contended by the revenue that such intimation was readily available in the e-filing portal of the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner has approached the first respondent and filed application u/s 264 to set right the dispute. The fact remains that such application was filed on 06.10.2015 with delay. The first respondent has specifically pointed out that the petitioner has not filed any application to condone the delay specifically indicating the reasons for such delay. It is also seen that the first respondent has chosen to reject the application only on the ground that it was filed belatedly. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsidering the matter afresh if the petitioner is in a position to satisfy the first respondent that the delay in filing such application under section 264 was neither willful or intentional. The order of the first respondent impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the application filed under section 264 is restored to file.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of being filed beyond the time stipulated under section 264.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed a revised return for the assessment year 2007-08 to rectify a mistake made in the original return, where the gross total income and total income were inadvertently shown as higher figures. The petitioner received an intimation regarding outstanding tax demand in 2015, five years after filing the revised return. The petitioner approached the first respondent under Section 264 on 06.10.2015, which was rejected due to being filed beyond the limitation period. The respondents contended that the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued in 2008 and was available on the e-filing portal of the petitioner. The court noted the factual mistake in the original return and the subsequent rectification through the revised return. However, the application under section 264 was filed with a delay, and the first respondent rejected it solely on this ground.

The court observed that the rejection of the application solely on the basis of delay would cause undue hardship to the petitioner, as the mistake was sought to be rectified in good faith. The court found that the petitioner had not filed any application to condone the delay specifically indicating the reasons for the delay. Therefore, the court decided to remit the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration, provided the petitioner can satisfy that the delay in filing the application under Section 264 was neither willful nor intentional. The court did not express any view on the merits of the claim made by the parties.

In the final judgment, the court set aside the order of the first respondent and restored the application filed under section 264. The petitioner was directed to file an application for condonation of delay within two weeks, explaining all reasons for the delay. The first respondent was instructed to consider the delay application and pass an order on merits within six weeks if satisfied with the reasons provided. The court emphasized that the entire process should be completed promptly and in accordance with the law.