TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (for short 'the Act'), is to be filed within a period of one year from the date on which the order in question i.e., the order passed on the petitioner's application for rectification was rejected. The order of rejection is dated 01.12.2016. The revision application has been filed on 28.10.2024 before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad (PCIT). The same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 on grounds of inordinate delay of 91 months, gross negligence and laches. The petitioner Trust manages the provident fund contributions of its employees and it is registered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. In respect of the return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15, exemption under Section 10(25) of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,21,72,442/- was disallowed on 10.03.2016 and consequently, a demand of Rs. 4,43,48,179/- was issued. Aggrieved against this, the assessee filed its rectification petition, which was rejected on 01.12.2016 impugned in revision before the learned Commissioner nearly after seven (7) years. The petitioner inter alia took the plea that it was not aware of the rejection of the rectification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is whether the delay in filing the petition under Section 264 can be condoned. 9. As per the provisions of Section 264, the application shall be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to the Assessee or the date on which the Assessee otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier. 10. In the present case the intimation u/s 143(1) was issued on 10.03.2016. Subsequently, the rectification request was rejected on 01.12.2016, and this information was accessible through the ITBA portal. Even if the benefit of doubt is extended and the date of rejection (01.12.2016) is considered as the relevant date, the last date to file a valid revision petition under Section 264 would be 01.2.2017. However, the present petition has been filed on 28.10.2024, nearly seven years after the statutory deadline, making it grossly time-barred. 11. The assessee's explanation - that it remained unaware of the rectification rejection due to the email being sent to an ex-employee has not been adduced by any documentary evidence to justify the inordinate delay. Further the reasons for delay which are given are prima facie not tenable and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. 10. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." It is submitted that the petitioner has not resorted to dilatory tactics. It was not going to benefit by approaching the revisional authority after such delay. The reasons for delay have been well-explained. This Court therefore should consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and come to its own finding untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. He has also placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in Bharatiya Engineering Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1979) 1 Taxman 441 (Bombay) and submitted that the learned Court has also taken note of the letters of Central Board of Direct Taxes submitted before the Public Accounts Committee in the year 1967-68 in matters relating to condonation of delay in refund cas....