2018 (9) TMI 1471 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Revision petition under Section 264 - Held that - First respondent is totally justified in rejecting the revision, since the reasons stated by the petitioner for the delay is neither convincing nor acceptable, as ignorance of law is no excuse. Petitioner invited this Court s attention to the communication sent by the ICICI Bank to the petitioner on 29.12.2010 to contend that the Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition of ₹ 6,58,237/-. I do not think that the above communication of the ICICI Bank, in any way, would help the petitioner, as the said communication clearly indicates only that no transactions were made for an amount of ₹ 6,80,348/- for the financial year 2007-2008 and not that the total transaction made for the said financial year was not for an amount of ₹ 6,80,348/-. As find that even on merits, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to seek for indulgence before the first respondent for considering the revision, by condoning such enormous delay. No grounds to interfere with the order of the first respondent. W.P. dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissed due to inordinate delay of more than five years without proper reasons and explanations.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order for the assessment year 2008-2009, which resulted in an additional income tax amount. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the first respondent after a delay of more than five years. The petitioner cited the reason for the delay as the previous Chartered Accountant's failure to advise on further appeal or revision. However, the first respondent rejected the revision petition, emphasizing the lack of proper reasons and explanations for the delay.

The court observed that the first respondent's decision to reject the revision was justified. Ignorance of the law was not considered a valid excuse for the significant delay in filing the petition. The petitioner's argument regarding a communication from ICICI Bank was deemed insufficient to support the case for revision. The court highlighted that the communication only indicated the absence of transactions amounting to a specific figure for a particular financial year, which did not address the overall assessment issue.

Conclusively, the court found that the petitioner failed to establish a compelling case for seeking indulgence from the first respondent to condone the substantial delay in filing the revision petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The court upheld the first respondent's order, stating there were no grounds for interference. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.