2019 (11) TMI 936 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 264 - first respondent has chosen to reject the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 264, as barred by limitation - HELD THAT - This Court, is of the view that a decision taken is not communicated, it should be treated that no such decision is taken in the eye of law. However, as it is communicated through the impugned proceedings dated 12.06.2018 that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner was already rejected on 03.03.2016, this Court is of the view that it is better for the first respondent to consider the matter afresh including the question of limitation by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that it is for the first respondent, if satisfied that the revision was filed in time, to consider the revision on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, by directing the first respondent to take the Revision Application filed by the petitioner in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2012-13 on file and dispose the same once again, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also by considering the question of limitation, if any.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to rejection of Revision Application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on grounds of limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the communication from the first respondent informing about the rejection of the Revision Application under Section 264 as "Void ab initio" due to being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The High Court noted that while the rejection was based solely on the issue of limitation, the decision was not communicated to the petitioner until a later date, creating a procedural flaw. The Court emphasized the importance of timely communication of decisions to enable parties to exercise their legal rights effectively.

The Court highlighted that the failure to communicate the rejection decision promptly deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to challenge it within the legal framework. The Court opined that in the absence of proper communication, it should be construed that no decision was made. However, since the communication was eventually made in 2018, the Court directed the first respondent to reconsider the matter, including the question of limitation, by providing a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

The judgment emphasized the need for procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in administrative decisions, especially in matters concerning statutory timelines. The Court directed the first respondent to reevaluate the Revision Application, considering both the limitation issue and the merits of the petitioner's claims, within a specified timeframe. The ruling aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure that parties are given a fair chance to present their arguments before administrative bodies.