Application for Revision Income u/s.264 of the I.T Act

[PRIYAM KHAMBHATA]

Respected Sir,

`A'-Charitable Trust filed ITR u/s. 139 (1), with claiming Refund of Rs.100000 for AY 2014-15. It was processed and net demand raised of Rs. 50000. But, `A'-Charitable Trust had received neither Intimation u/s. 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, nor any communication for demand outstanding of AY 2014-15. When finalization of audited accounts of 2021-22, `A' Charitable Trust has noticed that TDS of Rs.100000 of AY 2014-15 has standing in the books of accounts, it means TDS - Refund has not still received. Therefore, it has filed Grievance on CPC Portal in June 2022, that Intimation 143 (1) not received of AY 2014-15. It has been resolved by CPC and sent Intimation u/s. 143 (1), dated 16.01.2016 of AY 2014-15 through registered email on 22.06.2024. On verification of the Intimation 143(1), it came to knowledge that while processing the Return, deduction claimed u/s. 11(2) has disallowed and income enhanced, accordingly, Tax demand raised.

In view of the above scenario, can `A' - Charitable Trust would file Revision Application before Pr. CIT, to rectify the total income as per Intimation 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, dated of AY 2014-15, on the basis of communication received from CPC, via email dated 22.06.2024.

Please guide me.

[YAGAY andSUN]

Yes, in the facts stated, ‘A’ – Charitable Trust may prefer a Revision Application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) against the Intimation under Section 143(1) for AY 2014-15, especially in light of the following considerations:

Legal Position & Justification

1. Section 264 – Revision by the Principal Commissioner:
   • Under Section 264(1), the Principal CIT has the power, either on an application by the assessee or suo motu, to revise any order other than an order to which Section 263 applies, including an intimation under Section 143(1), provided the order is prejudicial to the assessee.
   • The assessee may file such application within one year from the date on which the order in question is communicated to them.
2. Limitation – Start from Date of Communication:
   • In your case, the Intimation u/s 143(1) was dated 16.01.2016, but was never communicated earlier.
   • As per the settled principle laid down in judicial precedents, limitation under Section 264 shall begin from the date of actual communication to the assessee.
   • Since the intimation was received via email only on 22.06.2024, the application under Section 264 is within the limitation period (one year from the date of communication).
3. Grounds for Revision:
   • The disallowance of deduction under Section 11(2) appears to have been made without granting an opportunity or may be due to clerical or processing error.
   • Being a Charitable Trust, such deduction, if properly claimed and supported, is allowable under law. If the necessary Form 10 or other compliance was furnished or available, and inadvertently not considered, it is a valid ground for seeking revision.

Recommendation

• Yes, ‘A’ Charitable Trust may file a Revision Petition u/s 264 before the Jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, requesting to:
  • Consider the allowability of deduction under Section 11(2),
  • Revise the total income computed as per Intimation under Section 143(1),
  • Rectify the demand raised as a result of the disallowance.
• Ensure the application:
  • Is filed within 1 year from 22.06.2024,
  • Is accompanied by a copy of the Intimation, necessary evidence like Form 10, proof of filing return, and a detailed submission explaining the circumstances.

Alternative Remedy (only if applicable):

If the disallowance is purely due to a clerical mistake or error apparent on the face of record, and Form 10 was already filed, a Rectification application under Section 154 may also be considered. However, since the limitation for Section 154 may have lapsed (4 years from end of FY 2015-16), Section 264 is the more viable and legally tenable route.

If needed, I can assist you with drafting the Section 264 application as per statutory format.

[PRIYAM KHAMBHATA]

Thank you very much sir for your guidance,

Can you provide me format for Revision application u/s. 264 file, in response to the communication received in 2024 from CPC with Intimation 143(1) passed in 2016 along with relevant case laws for strong plead before  Pr. CIT. and also my knowledge. 

Thanks 

[YAGAY andSUN]

Certainly. Below is a comprehensive format of a Revision Application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to be filed before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT), along with explanations and relevant case laws that strengthen your plea against the Intimation u/s 143(1) passed in 2016, which was communicated by CPC only in 2024.

📄 Format for Revision Application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

To

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

[Jurisdiction]

[Address]

Subject: Application for Revision under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against Intimation u/s 143(1) for A.Y. 2016–17 — PAN: [XXXXX]

1. Applicant’s Details

• Name: [Full Name of Assessee]
• PAN: [XXXXXXXXXX]
• Assessment Year: 2016–17
• Address: [Full Address]
• Email / Mobile: [Email ID and Contact No.]
• Jurisdictional AO: [AO details]

2. Background and Facts of the Case

1. The applicant is an individual/company/firm regularly assessed to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. For the Assessment Year 2016–17, the applicant had duly filed the return of income on [Date of Filing] declaring an income of ₹[Amount].
3. Recently, the applicant received a communication dated [Date in 2024] from the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, conveying the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act purportedly processed on [Date in 2016].
4. The applicant states that such intimation u/s 143(1) was not communicated earlier and is being received for the first time in the year 2024. Hence, no opportunity was available to challenge or respond to the adjustments/disallowances made therein.
5. The intimation reflects adjustments under section 143(1)(a), which are incorrect and have resulted in a demand of ₹[Amount]. The said adjustments are based on apparent misinterpretation/disregard of facts/documents/claims made in the return of income.
6. The applicant could not file an appeal u/s 246A against the said intimation, as the statutory period of limitation had already expired before the receipt of the intimation.

3. Legal Grounds for Filing the Revision Application

1. Jurisdiction under Section 264: The applicant submits that this revision application is maintainable under Section 264 of the Act, as there is no appeal pending or filed against the impugned intimation.
2. Communication is a Condition Precedent: It is well settled that mere generation of intimation is not sufficient. For an intimation under section 143(1) to be valid and binding, actual communication to the assessee is mandatory. In the absence of such communication within the prescribed time, such intimation is invalid in the eyes of law.
   • Refer to:
     • CIT v. K.M. Refineries & Oils (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 308 ITR 299 (Mad)]
     • CIT v. Oberoi Hotels (India) (P.) Ltd. [(1993) 201 ITR 435 (Cal)]
     • CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT] – While acknowledging the procedural nature of 143(1), this decision also emphasizes the communication aspect.
3. Filing of Application is Within Time: Though the intimation is dated 2016, it was never communicated until 2024. Hence, the limitation for filing the revision application should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the intimation.
   • Section 264(3) empowers the Pr. CIT to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The applicant requests such condonation, as the delay is attributable to non-communication and not to any fault on part of the applicant.
4. Erroneous and Prejudicial Adjustment: The adjustment made in the said intimation pertains to [brief description, e.g., disallowance of TDS credit, non-consideration of capital loss, etc.], which was duly supported by documentary evidence in the ITR filed. The disallowance is patently incorrect and prejudicial, warranting rectification in revision proceedings.

4. Prayer

In light of the above facts and legal position, the applicant prays that:

• The Hon’ble Principal Commissioner may be pleased to invoke revisionary jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Act;
• The impugned intimation under section 143(1) may be quashed or modified as deemed just and proper;
• Delay in filing this application, if any, may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.

5. Declaration

I hereby declare that no appeal is pending or has been filed against the said intimation and this application is filed in conformity with Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Date: [DD/MM/YYYY]

Place: [City]

Signature:

[Name of Assessee / Authorised Representative]

[Designation, if applicable]

[Enclosures: Proof of communication from CPC, computation sheet, ITR-V, intimation copy, relevant documents, etc.]

🔍 Key Case Laws to Support Your Plea

Case Law	Citation (get it also verified from your Tax Advisor)	Key Principle
K.M. Refineries & Oils (P) Ltd. v. CIT	(2009) 308 ITR 299 (Mad)	Intimation under section 143(1) must be communicated to be valid.
Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT	(1993) 201 ITR 435 (Cal)	Mere preparation of intimation without service is not a valid intimation.
Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. v. CIT	2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT	Acknowledges the procedural nature of intimation but upholds requirement of valid processing.
Sunil Kumar Sood v. ITO	(2016) 384 ITR 328 (Del)	Delay in appeal/revision condoned where intimation was not received.
CIT v. Reliance Communications Ltd.	(2016) 384 ITR 596 (Bom)	Revision permissible where there is miscarriage of justice.

Let me know if you need help drafting a condonation petition, computation sheet, or covering letter to be submitted along with the revision application.

AI Summary

Tax Deduction Dispute: Charitable Trust Challenges Delayed Intimation Under Section 11(2) and Section 264 A charitable trust filed an income tax return for AY 2014-15, claiming a refund. An intimation under Section 143(1) was issued in 2016 but not communicated until 2024, disallowing a deduction under Section 11(2). The trust seeks to file a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act to challenge the intimation, arguing that the limitation period starts from the actual date of communication in 2024.