Court dismisses petition challenging delay in filing revision petition under Income Tax Act, advises seeking alternative remedies

The Court found that the revision petition was not maintainable under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act as it did not meet the requirements. The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order refusing to condone the delay in filing the revision petition, advising the petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies against the assessment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to order refusing to condone delay in filing revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Maintainability of the revision petition under Section 264.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to order refusing to condone delay
The petitioner, a government-owned company, filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act seeking condonation of a delay of more than six years in filing the revision petition. The Commissioner refused to condone the delay and dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner challenged this order in a writ petition, seeking to quash the order and stay further proceedings. The counsel for the Income Tax Department supported the impugned order, arguing that the revision petition was not maintainable as it was not directed against any specific order of an authority subordinate to the Commissioner.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the revision petition
The Court raised doubts about the maintainability of the revision petition under Section 264, which allows revision by the Commissioner against an order passed by a subordinate authority. In this case, no such order by a subordinate authority was the subject of the revision petition. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner's order of assessment for a subsequent year, which mentioned the non-acceptance of the revised return filed belatedly, was the basis for filing the revision petition. However, the Court held that without an order accepting or rejecting the revised return, the petitioner should have challenged the assessment through an appeal under the Act, as the revision petition did not seek relief against any specific order of a subordinate authority. Therefore, the Court concluded that the revision petition was not maintainable under Section 264.

In conclusion, the Court found that the revision petition was not maintainable as it did not meet the requirements of Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order refusing to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. The petitioner was advised to seek other appropriate remedies available under the law against the assessment.

---