Court orders reevaluation of rejected tax petition, emphasizing merit consideration and proper procedure.

The court allowed the petition challenging the rejection of the revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The Principal Commissioner's dismissal on the basis of an alternate remedy of appeal was deemed incorrect as the petitioner had not filed an appeal within the stipulated time. The court emphasized the need to consider the merits of the case and directed the Principal Commissioner to reevaluate the application under Section 264, ensuring a reasoned decision after hearing the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and parties were instructed to comply with the court's order.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the rejection of the revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Section 264(4) regarding the alternate remedy of appeal.
3. Examination of the merits of the case concerning the erroneous inclusion of long-term capital gains.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Rejection of the Revision Petition:

The petitioner challenged the order dated 12 February 2021, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which rejected the revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the Principal Commissioner misconstrued the provisions of Section 264 by not considering the application on its merits and dismissing it on the grounds of an alternate remedy. The petitioner had not filed an appeal under Section 246A against the order dated 2 May 2019, and the time limit for filing such an appeal had expired. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner should have considered the revision application on its merits.

2. Applicability of Section 264(4) Regarding the Alternate Remedy of Appeal:

The Principal Commissioner dismissed the revision application under Section 264, citing that the petitioner had an alternate effective remedy of appeal and had not waived the right of appeal as per Section 264(4) of the Income Tax Act. The court analyzed Section 264(4), which mandates that the Commissioner shall not revise any order if an appeal against the order lies but has not been made, and the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or if the assessee has not waived the right of appeal. The court concluded that these conditions are cumulative, and if the time for making such an appeal has expired, the Principal Commissioner should exercise his powers of revision under Section 264. Since the petitioner did not file an appeal within the stipulated time, the Principal Commissioner should have considered the revision application on its merits.

3. Examination of the Merits of the Case Concerning the Erroneous Inclusion of Long-Term Capital Gains:

The petitioner’s return for the Assessment Year 2018-19 erroneously included long-term capital gains of Rs. 3,07,60,800, which had already been accounted for in the previous assessment year (2017-18). This error was inadvertently made by the petitioner’s accountant. The petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 154, which was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner under Section 264, seeking a revision of the order passed under Section 143(1). The court referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Vijay Gupta v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, which emphasized that the powers under Section 264 are wide and intended to correct errors, including those made by the assessee. The court also cited its decision in Universal Packaging and Others v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that non-speaking orders that do not consider the merits of the case violate the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:

The court found that the Principal Commissioner failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by dismissing the revision application on technical grounds without considering the merits. The court set aside the order dated 12 February 2021 and directed the Principal Commissioner to decide the application afresh on its merits, after hearing the petitioner and passing a reasoned order in line with the court’s discussion.

Order:

The petition was allowed, and the Principal Commissioner was directed to reconsider the application under Section 264 on its merits. No order as to costs was made. The parties were instructed to act on a copy of the court’s order authenticated by the associate of the court.

---