TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in the residence of the petitioner on 11.10.2006. As a consequence thereof, notice under Section 153(A) of the Act dated 10.03.2008 was issued requiring the petitioner to file a return of income within a period of fifteen days. In response thereto, the petitioner has filed his return of income on 22.07.2008, admitting an income of Rs. 1,45,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand only), claiming himself to be a resident for the assessment year 2001-02 to 2004-05. Subsequently, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was served and the petitioner's authorized representative appeared and filed details which were called for during the course of assessment. The petitioner filed another return of income on 25.11.2008, admitting a total income of Rs. 58,64,292/-. Based on the details furnished by the petitioner and the answers given to the queries raised, the assessing officer framed the assessment by order dated 29.12.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner/assessee did not prefer any appeal as against the assessment order. 4. After about nearly two years, the respondent in exercise of his powers under Section 263 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng back the said issue to the file of the assessing officer with a direction for fresh consideration in accordance with law. On receipt of the report from the Canada Revenue Agency of such order being passed, the assessing officer took up the matter and passed assessment orders dated 14.12.2011 i.e., after about nine months from the date on which order under Section 263 of the Act was passed by the respondent. With regard to the residential status of the petitioner, the Assessing Officer noted the contention raised by the petitioner that in the return of income filed prior to the date of search and the return filed after the date of search, the status of the petitioner was mistakenly taken as 'resident'. In support of such contention, the petitioner had filed the copies of the passport of the relevant previous year which was forwarded along with the order under Section 263 of the Act passed by the respondent dated 30.03.2011 and once again, the copies of the passport for the relevant year together with the original passport were produced before the Assessing Officer for perusal. The Assessing Officer verified the relevant details regarding the period of stay of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent to determine the petitioner's status for the relevant year as non-resident and pass order in the revision petition. This petition filed under Section 264 of the Act has been rejected by the impugned order. As pointed out earlier, the order of rejection passed by the respondent dated 27.03.2017 is not on the merits of the matter, but on the ground that the petition has been filed with undue and very long delay of more than 5 = years and therefore cannot be condoned. Since the respondent has not gone into the merits of the matter, this Court is required to see as to whether the petitioner should be non suited on the ground of delay or in other words, it has to consider as to whether the delay is more than 5 = years, the reason for rendering such a finding in the impugned order is on account of the limitation prescribed under Section 264 of the Act. The said provision states that in case of any order other than an order to which Section 263 of the Act, applies passed by any authority subordinate to him, the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may either on his own motion or an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income Tax reported in [2004] 140 TAXMAN 156 (J&K) and in the decision in Ramdev Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2001 Vol.251 ITR 873 which was followed by this Court in M/s.Medifield Equipments Corporation Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai VII, in WP.No.13408 of 2010 dated 12.11.2014 and in the case of Vijay Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 2016 386 ITR 643(Delhi), this Court pointed out that the powers of Commissioner conferred under Section 264 of the Act are very wide and the Commissioner is bound to apply his mind to the question as to whether the petitioner was taxable on that income and since Section 264 uses an expression any order , it would imply that the section does not limit the power to correct the errors committed by the sub ordinate authorities but could even be exercised, where errors are committed by the assessee. Having noted the powers of the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act, it has to be seen as to whether the order rejecting the petition on the ground of delay was justified. It is no doubt true that the Commissioner was justified in computing the time limit for entertaining the revision from the date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the Commissioner and Section 264 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to cause enquiry and verify the facts. Secondly, if there has been a genuine mistake committed by the assessee, Statute does not bar the assessee from rectifying his mistake though there might have been some statement made by the petitioner that the canadian income has been taxed in the said country which was found to be false and the stand taken by him that he has received certain Gifts were also found to be false cannot be a bar to ascertain the correct status of the petitioner as to whether during the relevant period that he was a resident or a non-resident. I am of the considered view, the petitioner should not be shut out on technicalities and the facts should not be left unexamined. In Venkatadri Traders Ltd., V. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another reported in 248 ITR 681, the Court while considering the question of condonation of delay by the revisional authority observed as follows: "While considering the question of condonation, the revisional authority is not to altogether exclude from consideration the merits of the revision petition. If the cause of justice requires that a liberal view ....