The court emphasized the advancement of justice and the need for disputes to be adjudicated on merits, accepting the explanation for the delay in filing the revision petitions and restoring them for consideration on merit.

D. Murugesan, J.

The appellant-M/s Rayala Corporation Private Limited is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of typewriters and manufacture and supply of defence equipments/components to various defence establishments in the country. In respect of levy of interest under Section 216 of the Income Tax Act and for waiver for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the matter landed before the Settlement Commissioner who, by order dated 30.12.92, remitted the matter to the assessing authority, and the assessments were completed on 12. 93 and 22. 94 respectively.

2. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee is entitled to prefer a revision within a period of one year from the date of the assessment order. However, without availing the remedy of filing revision petition, the appellant-assessee approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.21111 to 21113 of 1994. By order dated 212. 2000, this Court, while dismissing W.P.No.21111 of 1994 as infructuous, disposed the remaining two writ petitions with the following directions:-

"However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax for waiver of interest under section 264 of the Act. The petitioner is also permitted to prefer revision petition within a period of one month from this date. I am of the view that since the writ petition was entertained by this Court and the matter has been pending from the date of filing of the writ petition, the Commissioner of Income Tax is directed to take the revision petition that may be filed under section 264 of the Act by the petitioner, if the application is filed within one month from the date without raising any objection as to limitation and the Commissioner is directed to consider the said petition on merits and in the light of my judgment of even date rendered in W.P.No.21120 of 1994. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."

3. By the said order, the appellant-assessee ought to have preferred the revision petitions within a period of one month from 212. 2000 i.e., on or before 21. 2001. However, the revision petitions were filed only on 5. 2001 and the same were dismissed by the revisional authority on 23. 2003 on the ground that they were filed beyond a period of one month as prescribed by this Court. The said orders were questioned by the appellant-assessee in W.P.Nos.12408 and 12409 of 2003, which were dismissed by a common order dated 19. 2003. Hence the present appeals are filed by the appellant-assessee.

4. We have heard Mr.V.Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph, learned junior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department.

5. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, as against the order of the assessing authority, a revision is maintainable and could be filed within a period of one year from the date of the order. A proviso has been added to the said section, wherein a power has been conferred on the Commissioner to admit an application made after the expiry of the said period, if he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for making the application within that period. Hence it is not as if the revision filed beyond a period of one year would be automatically rejected and even a revision filed beyond that period could be entertained for good and sufficient reasons. This Court, while permitting the appellant-assessee to file the revision petitions taking into note of the said proviso, directed the appellant-assessee to prefer the revision petitions within a period of one month from the said date and also made it clear that the revisional authority should consider the revision petitions on merit in the event they are filed within the said period without raising any objection as to the limitation. Only in view of the period prescribed by this Court, the revisional authority, though had power to entertain the revision petitions even beyond a period of on