9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 990 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 264 - whether Revision petition filed by the Petitioner u/s 264 was arbitrarily dismissed on the ground of limitation? - HELD THAT - Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. He refers to the impugned order to contend that the reasoning given by the Petitioner for seeking condonation of delay is untenable in law. In the opinion of this Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted to the facts of the present case and the Petitioner is entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. This Court is of the view that if the time spent by the Petitioner in prosecuting the appeal under Section 248 of the Act is excluded, then the Revision Petition filed under Section 264 would be within time. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the CIT(IT) to decide the Revision Petition on merit in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merit of the controversy.
Issues:
Challenge to order by Commissioner of Income Tax for AY 2018-19, seeking direction to consider Revision Petition under Section 264 IT Act. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 27th March, 2021 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner also sought direction to consider the Revision Petition filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after condoning the delay in filing the petition. The petitioner argued that the Revision petition was dismissed on grounds of limitation, despite the petitioner's belief that the appeal filed earlier was maintainable, based on previous favorable orders. The petitioner withdrew the appeal upon realizing the error and promptly filed a Revision Petition within four days against the order passed by the Income Tax Officer. The impugned order was challenged as erroneous under Section 264 of the Act, citing sufficient cause for the delay. The respondent contested the petitioner's reasoning for seeking condonation of delay, arguing against the petitioner's position. The Court, considering Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, found that the time spent in prosecuting the earlier appeal under Section 248 of the Act could be excluded, making the Revision Petition within the time limit. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) to decide the Revision Petition on merit in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that its decision did not touch upon the merits of the controversy, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open for further consideration. In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Commissioner to reconsider the Revision Petition on merit, emphasizing the exclusion of time spent in the earlier appeal under Section 248 of the Act. The judgment focused on the procedural aspect of limitation and the petitioner's right to have the Revision Petition considered on its merits, without delving into the substantive issues of the case.
|
