Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Victorious H Grand – Appellant
Versus
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 20 & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5860 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Revision Application - Timely Disposal
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that respondent no.1 failed to dispose of the revision application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within the stipulated time frame.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed respondent no.1 to dispose of the petitioner's revision application within eight weeks from the date of the court's order and restrained the second respondent from taking coercive measures against the petitioner until the disposal of the application and for four weeks thereafter.
Issues: Timely disposal of revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of revision applications and issued a specific directive to ensure compliance with the statutory time frame.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no.1 to dispose of the petitioner's revision application within eight weeks and imposed a restraint on coercive measures by the second respondent.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
1. Issue notice.
1.1. Mr Abhishek Maratha, senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
2. Given the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Maratha says he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter and that he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court. Therefore, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
3. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.1 has failed to dispose of the revision application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"]. It is averred that this application was filed by the petitioner in and about 20.02.2020.
4. It appears that the revision application was filed concerning the order dated 21.12.2019 passed under Section 144 of the Act. The said order has been issued under the hand of respondent no.1.
5. Mr Pulkit Verma, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, correctly points out that the timeframe provided for disposal of the revision application is one (1) year.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to dispose of petitioner's revision application, if not already disposed of, at the earliest, though not later than eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today.
7. We make it clear that till such time respondent no.1 disposes of the revision application and for four (4) weeks thereafter, the second respondent will not take coercive measures against the petitioner.
8. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
Timely disposal of revision applications under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is crucial, and the court has the authority to issue specific directives to ensure compliance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner/assessee should be given an opportunity of hearing before deciding the revision petition on merits.
Timely disposal of rectification applications and examination of the viability of reliefs sought.
Procedural fairness and consideration of petitioner's response in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act
Violation of principles of natural justice and failure to adhere to the timeline given in the notice led to the setting aside of the impugned assessment orders.
The failure to provide a hearing before passing an adverse order constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating a new hearing.
The court emphasized the importance of the Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the petitioner's application and accord a personal hearing, and allowed filing of written submissions. It also prov....
Courts may set aside orders when greater latitude should have been granted due to family bereavement, and may direct the filing of a fresh reply and grant a personal hearing.
The court emphasized the importance of pursuing the statutory remedy available to the petitioner and restrained the revenue from taking coercive measures pending the decision in the pending appeals b....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
