2018 (9) TMI 1471 - HC - Income Tax

Revision petition dismissed due to delay citing lack of valid reasons. Ignorance of law not excused.

The court dismissed the revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to a delay of more than five years without proper reasons. ... Section 264 revision and condonation of delay - ignorance of law is no excuse - assessment order challenge and merits of additionSection 264 revision and condonation of delay - ignorance of law is no excuse - Whether the revision filed under Section 264 after an inordinate delay of more than five years ought to be condoned. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner's revision under Section 264 was filed on 25.07.2017 against an assessment order dated 30.12.2010, resulting in a delay exceeding five years. The sole explanation offered was that the petitioner's earlier Chartered Accountant had not advised filing an appeal or revision. The Court agreed with the first respondent that this explanation was neither convincing nor supported by documentary evidence, reiterating the settled principle that ignorance or inaction of an adviser does not constitute a sufficient ground to excuse delay - 'ignorance of law is no excuse.' Consequently the first respondent was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay and in rejecting the revision on that ground. [Paras 4, 5, 6]Revision dismissed for being filed with an inordinate unexplained delay; condonation refused.Assessment order challenge and merits of addition - Whether, even if the revision were considered on merits, the petitioner made out a prima facie case to obtain indulgence for condonation of delay. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner relied on a communication from ICICI Bank dated 29.12.2010 to challenge an addition made in the assessment. The Court found that the bank communication only stated that no transactions were made for a specific amount during the financial year 2007-2008, and did not demonstrate that the total transactions were otherwise. On this basis the Court held that the material relied upon did not establish that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition. Thus, even on merits the petitioner had not shown a case warranting exercise of discretion to condone the substantial delay and admit the revision. [Paras 6, 7]On merits petitioner failed to demonstrate error in the assessment; no ground for condoning delay or admitting the revision.Final Conclusion: The rejection of the revision by the first respondent was upheld: the delay in filing was inordinate and unexplained, and the petitioner also failed on merits to justify condonation; the writ petition is dismissed. Issues:1. Revision petition filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissed due to inordinate delay of more than five years without proper reasons and explanations.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the assessment order for the assessment year 2008-2009, which resulted in an additional income tax amount. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the first respondent after a delay of more than five years. The petitioner cited the reason for the delay as the previous Chartered Accountant's failure to advise on further appeal or revision. However, the first respondent rejected the revision petition, emphasizing the lack of proper reasons and explanations for the delay.The court observed that the first respondent's decision to reject the revision was justified. Ignorance of the law was not considered a valid excuse for the significant delay in filing the petition. The petitioner's argument regarding a communication from ICICI Bank was deemed insufficient to support the case for revision. The court highlighted that the communication only indicated the absence of transactions amounting to a specific figure for a particular financial year, which did not address the overall assessment issue.Conclusively, the court found that the petitioner failed to establish a compelling case for seeking indulgence from the first respondent to condone the substantial delay in filing the revision petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The court upheld the first respondent's order, stating there were no grounds for interference. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.