2019 (3) TMI 318 - HC - Income Tax

Revision petition u/s 264 - period of limitation of one year for filing a revision application - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that once the petitioner filed the return of income, the scrutiny assessment thereof, would become time-barred upon expiry of the period prescribed under the statute. This would happen sometime in the year 2010. The knowledge that the department does not propose to take the return of income for scrutiny assessment, can be attributed to the petitioner. If the petitioner had any dispute with the department accepting his return as per declaration made in it, the petitioner had to file an appropriate revision application before the Commissioner of Income Tax, within a period of one year thereafter, and at any rate, explaining the delay caused in filing such a revision application beyond the said period. In the present case, the revision application was filed seven years later. By no stretch of imagination, such long period can be ignored. The petitioner simply, cannot take shelter of non-communication of the intimation or acceptance u/s 143 (1). If, the petitioner wanted to dispute his own declaration in the return, he had to take appropriate steps before the Commissioner of Income Tax within the period of limitation prescribed which in the present case, is not done.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting revision application on grounds of delay.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an individual, challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting his revision application due to delay. The petitioner retired from a partnership firm and filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2007-08, including a sum received from the firm. The Assessing Officer accepted the return without scrutiny in 2009. The petitioner filed a revision application in 2017, seeking deletion of the sum from his taxable income. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition as time-barred, citing the limitation period of one year from the date of communication of the order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner noted that the intimation under section 143 (1) was served on the petitioner in 2009, making the revision application untimely.

The petitioner argued that the intimation was never served on him, questioning the correctness of the Commissioner's decision based on the limitation period. The petitioner claimed that he offered the income to tax erroneously and requested relief through the revision application. The petitioner's counsel contended that the Commissioner should have considered the merits of the case and granted the requested relief.

The Commissioner maintained that the intimation was duly served on the petitioner and opposed the delay in filing the revision application. The court acknowledged the petitioner's right to seek relief if the income declared was not taxable but emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing a revision application. The court noted that the limitation period starts from the date of communication of the order or the date of knowledge, whichever is earlier, under Section 264(3) of the Act.

The court highlighted that once the return of income is filed, scrutiny assessment becomes time-barred after a specified period. The court held that the petitioner should have filed the revision application within one year of the communication of the order or the date of knowledge, explaining any delay. In this case, the revision application was filed seven years later, and the court emphasized that such a significant delay cannot be overlooked. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to take appropriate steps within the prescribed limitation period, leading to the dismissal of the petition.