Limitation in tax revision: delay should be condoned where substantive challenge to Section 234E fee merits consideration.

Late fee under Section 234E was levied through intimation under Section 200A for belated e-TDS returns, and the revision under Section 264 was rejected as time-barred. The Karnataka HC noted that the assessee had already pursued rectification and appellate remedies, and that an earlier binding decision had held such fee could not be computed for the relevant prior period. It found that the revisional authority should not have taken a hyper-technical view of limitation and that the delay ought to have been condoned so the revision could be examined on merits. The rejection order was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the revision under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be condoned and the order rejecting the revision on limitation set aside.

Analysis: The challenge arose from intimation under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by which late fee under Section 234E was levied for belated e-TDS returns. The assessee had already pursued rectification under Section 154 and appellate remedies, and the revision under Section 264 was rejected only on the ground of delay. The Court noted the binding effect of the earlier decision holding that fee under Section 234E could not be computed for the relevant prior period and held that the revisional authority ought not to have adopted a hyper-technical approach to limitation. In the circumstances, the delay was liable to be condoned so that the revision could be examined on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the order rejecting the revision was set aside.

---