Commissioner lacks authority to entertain revision application due to Settlement Commission's exclusive jurisdiction. Order dismissal justified.

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Commissioner lacked the authority to entertain the revision application. It emphasized the Settlement Commission's exclusive jurisdiction once a settlement application is accepted, limiting the Assessing Officer's role to implementing the Commission's directives. The court highlighted the petitioner's failure to specify the order for revision and insufficient justification for the delay in filing the petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Taxability of the subsidy received under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUF Scheme).
3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise the order passed by the Assessing Officer following the Settlement Commission's order.
4. Delay in filing the revision petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Revision Application under Section 264:
The petitioner, a public limited company, challenged the order dated 28.2.2018 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, rejecting the revision application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on three grounds:
- Failure to explain the delay in filing the revision petition.
- Lack of power to revise the order of the Settlement Commission.
- Incorrectness of the petitioner's claim that the subsidy was a capital receipt and not taxable.

2. Taxability of the Subsidy Received under the TUF Scheme:
The petitioner received reimbursement of interest expenses under the TUF Scheme for modernization or expansion of its textile units. The petitioner argued that the subsidy was a capital receipt and not taxable. Despite this, the subsidy was offered to tax during the relevant assessment years. The Commissioner, however, held that the subsidy was taxable as revenue receipt.

3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to Revise the Order:
The petitioner contended that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the Assessing Officer after the Settlement Commission's order. The petitioner argued that the Settlement Commission's order is conclusive only on the issues decided by it, and the Commissioner could entertain new grounds not adjudicated by the Settlement Commission. However, the court held that the Settlement Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the case once an application for settlement is filed and allowed to proceed. The Assessing Officer's role was limited to giving effect to the Settlement Commission's directives, and the Commissioner could not revise the Settlement Commission's order or the subsequent orders of the Assessing Officer.

4. Delay in Filing the Revision Petition:
The petitioner explained the delay by stating that the amendment to Section 2(24) of the Act, clarifying the taxability of government subsidies, came into effect on 14 May 2015. The petitioner argued that the time limit for filing the revision petition should be considered from this date. The Commissioner, however, held that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the delay, whether computed from the date of the Settlement Commission's order or the date of the assessment orders.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Commissioner had no power to entertain the revision petition in the present facts and circumstances. The court emphasized that the Settlement Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the case once an application for settlement is filed and allowed to proceed, and the Assessing Officer's role is limited to implementing the Settlement Commission's directives. The court also noted that the petitioner did not specify which order it sought to revise and failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revision petition.

---