2019 (10) TMI 552 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of wrt petition before HC where option for filing Revision u/s 264 is available - Rejection of Refund of excess amount paid as tax - assessment year 2005-06 - no appeal under the Act from the impugned order is available to the Petitioner - whether revision under section 264 of the Act is available? - HELD THAT - A revision would lie to the Commissioner of Income Tax from any order passed by the authority subordinate to him in respect of any proceeding under the Act. In the present case, the order has been passed by the officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Income Tax and the same has been passed in respect of proceeding initiated by the Petitioner seeking refund. The impugned order dated 9 April 2019 adjudicates a lis between the Revenue and the Petitioner. This requires an examination of facts for adjudication of the dispute. There are no substance in the submission of the Petitioner that no revision would be available against the impugned order as it is not an order passed under the Act. Thus, remedy of revision under section 264(1) of the Act would be available to the Petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting refund application for excess tax paid for assessment year 2005-06 under Income Tax Act, 1961. Availability of alternate remedy under the Act for redressal of grievance.

Analysis:
The petition challenged the order dated 9 April 2019 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the refund application for excess tax paid for assessment year 2005-06. The order was passed following the directions of the Court in a previous writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that there was no alternate remedy available under the Act as the impugned order was not appellable under section 246A of the Act, and revision under section 264 was not feasible due to the absence of an order enabling a revision application. The Petitioner argued that due to the delay in the matter relating to the assessment year 2005-06, extraordinary jurisdiction should be exercised by the Court. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the impugned order.

The Court acknowledged that no appeal under the Act was available to the Petitioner due to the nature of the order not being made appellable under section 246A. However, the Court considered whether revision under section 264 of the Act was an option. Section 264 allows for revision by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from any order passed by a subordinate authority in proceedings under the Act. In this case, the order was passed by an officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Income Tax concerning a proceeding initiated by the Petitioner for a refund. The Court found that the impugned order adjudicated a dispute between the Revenue and the Petitioner under the Act, making revision under section 264 available to the Petitioner.

The Court referred to a previous case to emphasize that the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner extends to orders passed under the Act, even if not under a specific provision. Unlike appeal provisions, section 264 allows for revision from `any order' under the Act, indicating the broad powers of the Commissioner to correct orders by subordinate officers. Consequently, the Court concluded that an efficacious alternate remedy was available to the Petitioner under the Act, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

In summary, the Court dismissed the petition challenging the order rejecting the refund application, highlighting the availability of revision under section 264 of the Income Tax Act as an alternate remedy for the Petitioner. The judgment emphasized the broad powers of the Commissioner to revise any order under the Act, contrasting it with the specific provisions for appeal, and cited previous case law to support the interpretation of the revisional jurisdiction.