9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 657 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay in filing application u/s 264 before CIT for revision in favor of assessee - Allowance of writ petition filed by Revenue against the order in a writ petition filed by Assessee Held that - Learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee could not and did not dispute the factual matrix mentioned in the foregoing proceedings nor could he point out as to how the order passed by the learned Single Judge is correct. He could not dispute that an application for condonation of delay was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax along with revision under Section 264 of the Act - Order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is restored to file Requested to the learned Single Judge to consider the writ petition afresh on merits Decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Revision of original assessment under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. 3. Proper consideration of facts and sequence of events by the learned Single Judge. Issue 1: Revision of original assessment under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act: The respondent-assessee filed returns of income for the assessment year 1997-98, initially declaring a total income and later seeking modification under Section 80HHC of the Act. The revised return was not entertained by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax due to being barred by limitation. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act against the original order dated 27.11.1998. The Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the revision petition on merits, stating that the delay in filing the revision was not satisfactorily explained and was not due to sufficient cause. The Commissioner also noted that the assessee had not disclosed full facts in the revision petition, and failed to meet the essential conditions for claiming deduction under section 80HHC. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition against the original order dated 27.11.1998. Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the revision petition: The delay in filing the revision petition against the original order dated 27.11.1998 was of 5 years, 4 months, and 6 days. The Commissioner considered the delay and the revision petition on merits, ultimately rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner held that the delay was not due to sufficient cause within the meaning of the proviso to section 264(3) of the Act. The Commissioner also emphasized that the inordinate delay in filing the revision petition was unjustified and not promptly addressed by the assessee. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed along with the revision petition. Issue 3: Proper consideration of facts and sequence of events by the learned Single Judge: The appellant-revenue contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider the sequence of events properly and assumed that the revision under Section 264 of the Act was filed against an order dated 28.3.2003, whereas it was actually against the order dated 27.11.1998. The learned Single Judge's observation regarding the revised assessment and the condonation of delay was based on a misinterpretation of the events. The learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee did not dispute the factual matrix presented in the proceedings and failed to demonstrate the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the writ petition for reconsideration on merits. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues related to the revision of the original assessment under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, the condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, and the proper consideration of facts by the learned Single Judge. The decision provided detailed analysis and clarification on the sequence of events, the reasons for rejecting the revision petition, and the necessity for factual accuracy in legal proceedings.
|
