2014 (9) TMI 787 - HC - Income Tax

Revision petition rejected Jurisdiction of AO to pass order u/s 144 Held that - It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to approach the Court with utmost good faith and make complete disclosure in the Petition while seeking relief - no mention has been made of when the attachment of the film was done by the Revenue - This attachment would have been fatal to the marketability of the film Shehzaade - The Assessment Order dated 19th March, 1993 passed by the AO has merged into the impugned order dated 30th March, 2006 of the CIT - the issue before the CIT was whether or not the Revision Application filed against the order dated 19th March, 1993 was within time - The averments of the Petition that he received the order dated 19th March, 1993 only on 5th January, 2004, is in the face of the xerox copy of the postal acknowledgment given by the postal authorities, evidencing the receipt of the order by the Petitioner as fat as back 1st April, 1993 - The Petitioner after filing his Return of Income for the AY 1990-91 and giving a particular address therein, makes himself unavailable at that address - Nor does the Petitioner inform the Revenue of the address where communication relating to his Return of Income for the AY 1990-91 could be sent - the absence of notice being served upon him, the entire proceedings are bad in law - the order dated 30th March 2006 of the CIT cannot be held as perverse or suffering from any flaw in the decision making process Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Timeliness of Revision Application, Service of notices under Section 143(2) of the Act, Disclosure of material facts in the Petition, Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, Assessment Order dated 19th March, 1993, Acceptance of Assessment Order by the Petitioner, Jurisdictional requirement of serving notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.

Analysis:
The Petitioner challenged the order dated 30th March, 2006, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which refused to entertain the Revision Application against the Assessment Order dated 19th March 1993 for the Assessment Year 1990-91. The Petitioner claimed that the Assessment Order dated 19th March 1993 was without jurisdiction as the statutory requirement of serving a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not fulfilled. The Petitioner filed the Revision Application on 28th July, 2004, within the time limit of one year provided under Section 264 of the Act, upon receiving the Assessment Order on 5th January, 2004. However, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2006, stated that the Petitioner was served with the order on 1st April, 1993, based on the postal acknowledgment. The Petitioner contended that he was not available in India during the relevant time, as evidenced by returned unserved notices earlier. The Petitioner's Counsel argued that the impugned order proceeded on the erroneous basis of service in April 1993, instead of January 2004, rendering the Revision Application timely.

The Respondent's Counsel supported the impugned order, stating that the Assessment Order was served on 1st April, 1993, as evidenced by the postal acknowledgment attached to the Petitioner's affidavit. The Court emphasized the obligation of the Petitioner to make full disclosure of material facts when seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted discrepancies in the Petitioner's submissions, such as the attachment of the film 'Shehzaade' by the Income Tax Department in 1998, not mentioned in the Petition. The Court highlighted the importance of timely disclosure of all relevant facts and criticized the Petitioner's failure to dispute the postal acknowledgment's signature, indicating acceptance of the Assessment Order by the Petitioner.

The Court found that the Revision Application was time-barred, as the Petitioner received the Assessment Order on 1st April, 1993, contrary to his claim of receiving it on 5th January, 2004. The Court dismissed the Petition, stating that the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax was not flawed, and the Petitioner's conduct did not warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the decision-making process was sound, and there was no perversity in the impugned order. The Court concluded that the Petitioner's absence and failure to update his address for communication invalidated his argument regarding the absence of notice service, as the proceedings were not found to be legally flawed.

In summary, the Court dismissed the Petition, ruling that the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax was valid, and the Petitioner's conduct did not justify interference in the writ jurisdiction, given the time-barred Revision Application and lack of full disclosure of material facts.