Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (10) TMI 490 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
Challenge to order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for A.Y. 2020-21 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Rejection of Revision Application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-payment of mandatory fee of Rs. 500 at the time of filing.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Trust, challenged the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer, which determined the income at Rs. 2,70,65,416 after additions under Section 11 (1) and Section 11 (2) (a) of the Act due to non-furnishing of reply to show-cause notice. The demand of Rs. 1,32,76,821 was raised. The Revision Application under Section 264 was filed to revive and amend the Assessment Order. However, the respondent rejected the application citing non-payment of the mandatory fee of Rs. 500 at the time of filing, despite later payment and request for condonation of delay.

The respondent's rejection was based on the strict interpretation of Section 264(5) of the Act, deeming the fee payment mandatory without provision for condonation of delay. The respondent cited precedents where non-payment of fees led to dismissal of appeals. The petitioner argued that payment on the day of notice receipt fulfilled the requirement, and the application was within the time limit even if the payment date was considered as the filing date.

The Court found the respondent's interpretation erroneous, as the fee was paid promptly after objections were raised, complying with Section 264(5). The Court distinguished the cited cases where fees were not paid, unlike in the present case. The Court held that the Revision Application should have been considered on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter remanded for a decision on merits within 12 weeks.

In conclusion, the petition challenging the rejection of the Revision Application due to non-payment of mandatory fee was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing compliance with fee payment requirements and the need for substantive consideration of the application on its merits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates