9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not apply in cases of revisionary orders to be passed in; con sequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. If a revision has not been decided by the Commissioner within the stipulated period, it does not mean that the revision stands allowed. If the provisions of section 264(6) is held to be mandatory then the failure to decide the revision within the stipulated period would cause prejudice not only to the person who has filed the revision but also to the department. It would also defeat or frustrate the leglislative intent. The legislative intent is that the revision should be decided expeditiously, if possible within the time bound period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Year 2003-04, the petitioner had disclosed its income at Rs. 6.890/- The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Notice under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Income Tax Officer, Basti respondent No. 3 and filed its return. The respondent No. 3 passed an assessment order on 20.03.2006 under section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 10,03,280/- A notice of demand dated 20.03.2006 under section 156 of the Act was also issued. Feeling aggrieved against the assessment order, the petitioner preferred a revision under section 264 of the Act on 08.05.2006 before the Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of one year from the end of the assessment order in which such revision has been filed, therefore, after the expiry of the aforesaid period, the Commissioner of Income Tax becomes functous officio to decide the revision and the necessary corolary is that the revision should be treated as having been allowed. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Rohit Organics (P) Ltd., (2006) 281 ITR 194. Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel submitted that the provisions of section 264(6) of the Act is directory. Even though a time limit has been specified for deciding the revision preferred by an assessee, yet if the same is not decided within the stipulated time limit w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Direct Taxes in its Circular No.772 dated 23.12.1998, which is as under: "62. Providing limitation of time for revising orders by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the Income-tax Act: 62.1 Under the existing provisions, the Commissioner of Income-tax is empowered to revise an order passed by the subordinate authority where no appeal has been filed. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot be prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. There is limitation of one year for filing the application but there is no time limit for the Commissioner of Income-tax to dispose of the application. The absence of such a provision has contributed to the delay in the disposal of such applications. 62.2 The Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime shall deem to have been granted. The principles laid down in the aforesaid case would have no application in the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chet Ram (supra) would specifically be applicable wherein it has been held that the failure of the Standing Committee of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to consider under section 313(3), an application for sanction to a lay-out plan within the period specified in the sub-section does not result in a 'deemed' grant of the sanction. It is settled law that a party can not be made to suffer prejudice by any default or negligence on the part of the Court. In the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (supra), the Calcutta High Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether a particular interpretation would defeat or frustrate the legislation and if the provision is mandatory, the act done in breach thereof will be invalid." Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case to the fact of the present case, we find that if the provisions of section 264(6) is held to be mandatory then the failure to decide the revision within the stipulated period would cause prejudice not only to the person who has filed the revision but also to the department. It would also defeat or frustrate the leglislative intent. The legislative intent is that the revision should be decided expeditiously, if possible within the time bound period. Failure to do so would not defeat the right of the aggrieved person. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
