Commissioner's refusal to exercise Section 264 jurisdiction based on available appeal remedy held legally untenable

The Bombay HC set aside the revisional authority's order declining to exercise jurisdiction under Section 264 of the IT Act. The court held that the commissioner's refusal based on availability of appeal remedy and the assessee's choice not to appeal was legally untenable, citing precedent in Aafreen Fatima case. The HC also ruled that intimation under Section 143(1) constitutes an order amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 264, referencing Gopal Vazirani and Smita Rohit Gupta decisions. The matter was remanded to the revisional authority for decision on merits.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issues considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the Commissioner was justified in declining to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal against the intimation under Section 143(1).
• Whether an intimation under Section 143(1) qualifies as an 'order' that is revisable under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Availability of Alternate Remedy of Appeal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides the framework for the revision of orders by the Commissioner. The Court referred to a precedent set by a coordinate bench in the case of Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed, which established that the Commissioner cannot refuse to exercise revisional jurisdiction solely because an appeal was not filed, especially when the time for filing such an appeal has expired.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted Section 264(4)(a) to mean that the Commissioner cannot revise an order if an appeal lies and the time to file such an appeal has not expired, or if the assessee has not waived the right to appeal. The Court emphasized that these conditions are cumulative, and once the time to file an appeal has expired, the Commissioner should exercise revisional jurisdiction.

Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the Petitioner did not file an appeal against the order under Section 143(1) and that the time to file such an appeal had expired. The Court found that the Commissioner's refusal to exercise revisional jurisdiction was contrary to the law as interpreted in the Sayed case.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal framework to the facts of the case, concluding that the Commissioner should have exercised revisional jurisdiction since the time to appeal had expired and the Petitioner had not waived the right to appeal.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the Petitioner could still file an appeal by seeking condonation of delay, emphasizing that such an appeal would be at the discretion of the Appellate Authority and not a matter of right.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Commissioner's first reason for declining revisional jurisdiction was untenable.

2. Intimation under Section 143(1) as a Revisable Order

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to the decision in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Anderson Marine & Sons (P.) Ltd., which held that an intimation under Section 143(1) is an order for the purposes of Section 264 and hence revisable. The Court also cited similar conclusions from other cases such as Gopal Vazirani and Smita Rohit Gupta.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that an intimation under Section 143(1) is a form of assessment and has the force of an order on self-assessment. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent did not exclude the revisional jurisdiction in respect of intimation under Section 143(1).

Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the Commissioner's second reason for declining revisional jurisdiction was based on an incorrect interpretation of the nature of intimation under Section 143(1).

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal reasoning from precedent cases to determine that the intimation under Section 143(1) in the present case was indeed revisable under Section 264.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court dismissed the argument that an intimation under Section 143(1) could not be revised, referencing multiple precedents that supported the revisability of such intimations.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Commissioner's second reason for declining revisional jurisdiction was also unsustainable.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court quoted from the case of Anderson Marine & Sons: "The intimation sent by the Assessing Officer, in law, will have to be understood as having the force of an order on self-assessment. Only this construction would be purposive construction."

Core principles established: The judgment established that:

• The Commissioner cannot refuse to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 solely because an appeal was not filed, especially when the time to appeal has expired.
• An intimation under Section 143(1) is considered an order for the purposes of revision under Section 264.

Final determinations on each issue: The Court set aside the impugned order dated 12 February 2021, restored the Petitioner's revision before the revisional authority, and directed the authority to decide the revision on its merits in accordance with the law.

---