Dismissal of Revision Application u/s 264 of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC directs to obtain Instructions [Read Order]

Delhi HC follows its previous decision that the Intimation under section 143(1) is regarded as an order for the purposes of section 264 of the Income Tax Act
Delhi high court - Income tax - Revision Application - Dismiss revision application - TAXSCAN

The Delhi High Court directed to obtain instructions in the matter relating to the dismissal of the revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The challenge stands raised to the impugned order dated 02 November 2023, in terms of which the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has proceeded to dismiss the revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not only on account of limitation, but also proceeding to render various observations touching upon the merits of its maintainability itself.

The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit.

Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is applicable to any order other than an order to which section 263 applies; Commissioner may act suo moto or on application made by the assessee; Commissioner may call for the record of any proceedings under the Act in which such order has been passed; Order may be passed not being prejudicial to the assessee. However an order declining to interfere is not an order prejudicial to the assessee.

A Division Bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that “We note that insofar as the issue of maintainability of a revision application under Section 264 against an intimation under Section 143(1) is concerned, it has chosen to rest its view on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited”.

“Apart from the aforesaid, we note that the petitioner had received more than one intimation under Section 143(1) and consequently the prayer for condonation was liable to be examined in the aforesaid light. In view of the limited nature of questions which arise, we request the counsel appearing for the respondent to obtain instructions” the Court noted.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates