1. Assessment order under Section 143(1)(a), Income Tax Act — delayed revision application under Section 264 — application for Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme — High Court dismissal of writ. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1239
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : M.Srinivasan : N.Santosh Hegde
Computwel Systems Private Limited
Versus
W.Hasan
Case No. : 1 , 5464 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/26/99
Advocates Appeared: Lal Mohna Madan : Rangaswamy Radha
A revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not considered "pending" for the purpose of settlement schemes if the accompanying application for condonation of delay has not been granted.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 264 - Finance Act, 1998 - Section 88 - Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Revision application filed with delay - Condonation of delay refused - Whether application is "pending" for the purpose of settlement scheme - Application for revision can be regarded as pending only if the delay in filing the same has been condoned - If delay is not condoned, the revision petition is not entertained and thus not pending. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
An order of assessment was passed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A revision application under Section 264 was filed after a delay of 1 year 10 months and 10 days. The authority did not condone the delay. Subsequently, a declaration under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1998, under a settlement scheme was filed. The authority refused to entertain the declaration on the ground that no revision application was pending since the delay in filing the revision application had not been condoned.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the High Court that no ground was made out for condoning the delay. It was held that what was pending at the time of filing the declaration under the settlement scheme was the application for condonation of delay; the revision petition itself could only be regarded as pending if the delay had been condoned.
Issues: Whether a revision application filed along with an application for condonation of delay is considered "pending" for the purpose of availing benefits under a settlement scheme if the delay has not been condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: A revision petition under Section 264 is regarded as pending only if the delay in filing it has been condoned. As the delay was not condoned, the revision petition itself was never entertained and therefore was not pending.
Result: Special leave petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a revision application filed with a delay is considered pending for the purpose of availing benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. (Para 4 , 6 )
3. A revision petition is not considered pending if the accompanying application for condonation of delay has not been granted. (Para 6 )
4. A delayed application for revision is not pending for statutory scheme benefits until the delay in filing is condoned. (Para 6 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed; High Court order upheld. (Para 7 )
6. Does a delayed revision application count as pending for the purpose of a settlement scheme?
No. A revision petition is regarded as pending only if the delay in filing it has been condoned. If the application for condonation of delay is not granted, the revision petition itself is not entertained and thus not pending. (Para 6 )
7. What is the legal status of a revision petition filed alongside an application for condonation of delay?
Only the application for condonation of delay is considered pending. The revision petition is only regarded as pending if the delay is condoned; otherwise, it is never entertained by the authority. (Para 6 )
(1) DELAY condoned.
(2) ORDER of assessment was passed in the case of the petitioner on 12-1-1996 under Section 143(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
(3) UNDER the Finance Act, 1998 a scheme known as Kar Vivad Samadhan was promulgated. Persons could avail of the benefit of this Scheme if their cases were still pending.
(4) IN October 1998, the petitioner filed an application under Section 264 before the Commissioner of Income Tax for revising the order of assessment dated 12-1-1996. The Commissioner of Income Tax did not condone the delay of 1 year 10 months and 10 days. It appears that the petitioner also filed on 28-12-1998 a declaration under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1998 under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. This declaration was not entertained by the Commissioner in view of the fact that according to him there was no revision application pending because the delay in filing the revision application has not been condoned.
(5) THE High Court on a writ petition being filed, upheld the order of the Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition.
(6) WE agree with the observations of the High Court that no ground was made out for condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 264. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petition under Section 264 was pending when the application under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1998 had been filed. We do not agree with this submission for the simple reason that what was really pending at that point of time was the application for condonation of delay, of course, along with that application the petition under Section 264 had been filed but the same could be regarded as pending only if the delay had been condoned. As the delay was not condoned, the revision petition itself was never entertained.
(7) THE order of the High Court, in our opinion, does not call for any interference. Special leave petition is dismissed.
