9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 656 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 264 - revisional authority s declining to exercise revisional jurisdiction - HELD THAT - We refer to the provisions of Section 264 in which no such limitation is to be found or based on which the commissioner could have declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. Coordinate Bench in the case of Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed 2021 (4) TMI 1034 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT in similar circumstances where the commissioner had declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction because the order was appealable and the assessee had chosen not to institute an Appeal held that revision authority could not have refused to exercise its revision jurisdiction on such a ground. The revisional authority s reason for declining to exercise revisional jurisdiction is contrary to the law as explained by Sayed 2021 (4) TMI 1034 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Intimation u/s 143 (1) is an order for the purposes of Section 264 - In Gopal Vazirani 2024 (3) TMI 1017 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT another co-ordinate Bench has held that an intimation u/s 143 (1) was amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 of the IT Act. In Smita Rohit Gupta 2023 (9) TMI 220 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT another Co-ordinate Bench after distinguishing the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd 2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT held that the revision would be maintainable against an intimation under Section 143 (1) of the IT Act 1961. Accordingly the second reason based upon which the commissioner declined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction is also not sustainable. No such universal inference can be drawn in tax matters. In any event the revisional authorities exercising the revisional jurisdiction must look into this matter since this is a case where the revisional authority has virtually declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. We have found that the two reasons the revisional authority declined to exercise its jurisdiction were untenable. Therefore the impugned order dated 12 February 2021 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Petitioner s revision is now restored before the revisional authority which shall decide such revision on its merits on and following law.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Availability of Alternate Remedy of Appeal Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides the framework for the revision of orders by the Commissioner. The Court referred to a precedent set by a coordinate bench in the case of Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed, which established that the Commissioner cannot refuse to exercise revisional jurisdiction solely because an appeal was not filed, especially when the time for filing such an appeal has expired. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted Section 264(4)(a) to mean that the Commissioner cannot revise an order if an appeal lies and the time to file such an appeal has not expired, or if the assessee has not waived the right to appeal. The Court emphasized that these conditions are cumulative, and once the time to file an appeal has expired, the Commissioner should exercise revisional jurisdiction. Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the Petitioner did not file an appeal against the order under Section 143(1) and that the time to file such an appeal had expired. The Court found that the Commissioner's refusal to exercise revisional jurisdiction was contrary to the law as interpreted in the Sayed case. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal framework to the facts of the case, concluding that the Commissioner should have exercised revisional jurisdiction since the time to appeal had expired and the Petitioner had not waived the right to appeal. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the Petitioner could still file an appeal by seeking condonation of delay, emphasizing that such an appeal would be at the discretion of the Appellate Authority and not a matter of right. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Commissioner's first reason for declining revisional jurisdiction was untenable. 2. Intimation under Section 143(1) as a Revisable Order Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to the decision in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Anderson Marine & Sons (P.) Ltd., which held that an intimation under Section 143(1) is an order for the purposes of Section 264 and hence revisable. The Court also cited similar conclusions from other cases such as Gopal Vazirani and Smita Rohit Gupta. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that an intimation under Section 143(1) is a form of assessment and has the force of an order on self-assessment. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent did not exclude the revisional jurisdiction in respect of intimation under Section 143(1). Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the Commissioner's second reason for declining revisional jurisdiction was based on an incorrect interpretation of the nature of intimation under Section 143(1). Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal reasoning from precedent cases to determine that the intimation under Section 143(1) in the present case was indeed revisable under Section 264. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court dismissed the argument that an intimation under Section 143(1) could not be revised, referencing multiple precedents that supported the revisability of such intimations. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Commissioner's second reason for declining revisional jurisdiction was also unsustainable. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court quoted from the case of Anderson Marine & Sons: "The intimation sent by the Assessing Officer, in law, will have to be understood as having the force of an order on self-assessment. Only this construction would be purposive construction." Core principles established: The judgment established that:
Final determinations on each issue: The Court set aside the impugned order dated 12 February 2021, restored the Petitioner's revision before the revisional authority, and directed the authority to decide the revision on its merits in accordance with the law.
|
