High Court condones delay in filing revision petition, emphasizes prompt approach, quashes Commissioner's order

The High Court held that the delay in filing the revision petition challenging the order of the AAC for the assessment year 1975-76 should be condoned. The Court found that the mere pendency of the matter before the Tribunal was not sufficient cause for the delay. Emphasizing the petitioner's prompt approach to the Commissioner after the first Tribunal hearing, the Court ruled that the refusal to condone the delay was not a due exercise of judicial discretion. Quashing the Commissioner's order, the High Court directed the revision petition to be disposed of on merits without imposing any costs.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing revision petition challenging the order of the AAC for the assessment year 1975-76.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated February 23, 1979, dismissing the revision petition against the order of the AAC. The AAC's order was made on May 27, 1977, and served on the assessee on June 9, 1977. The assessee filed an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which was delayed by 35 days and taken up on December 4, 1978. The Tribunal refused to admit the appeal on December 12, 1978. Before receiving the Tribunal's order, the assessee filed a revision petition before the Commissioner on December 5, 1978, actually filed on December 8, 1978.

The Commissioner rejected the revision petition and refused to condone the delay, stating that the mere pendency of the matter before the Tribunal was not sufficient cause for the delay. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to uncertainty regarding the Tribunal's decision on condoning the delay, which became clear only on December 4, 1978. The High Court found the Commissioner's reason for rejection untenable. Section 264(4)(c) of the I.T. Act prohibits the Commissioner's jurisdiction if the order is subject to an appeal before the Tribunal. The High Court held that the petitioner's attempt to file an appeal with the Tribunal should not adversely affect them. The Court emphasized that the petitioner promptly approached the Commissioner after the first Tribunal hearing, showing no lack of bona fides.

The High Court ruled that the refusal to condone the delay was not a due exercise of judicial discretion. Citing a similar case from the Gujarat High Court, the High Court quashed the Commissioner's order and directed to proceed as there was sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court emphasized that the delay must be condoned, and the revision petition should be disposed of on merits. The High Court made the rule absolute, quashing the Commissioner's order, and directed to proceed accordingly without imposing any costs.

---