Revision petition u/s 264 not dismissible on grounds of alternative remedy of filing CIT(A): HC

  • Blog|News|Income Tax|
  • 2 Min Read
  • By Taxmann
  • |
  • Last Updated on 14 April, 2022

Recent Posts

News, Blog, Account & Audit

Impact of Deferred Tax on the Right of Return of Goods – Ind AS 12

Blog, Advisory, Company Law

[Analysis] SEBI Board Meeting Highlights [Dec. 2024] – Stricter Norms for SME IPOs | Use of AI Tools | Expansion of the UPSI Definition

Latest from Taxmann

Income-tax Act 1961; Revision; Of other orders (Scope of); Assessment year 2012-13;

Case Details: Sahil Machines India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India - [2022] 136 taxmann.com 412 (Punjab & Haryana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

    • Ajay Tewari and Pankaj Jain, JJ.
    • Chetan Bansal, Adv. for the Petitioner. 
    • Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel and Varun Issar, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

During the relevant year, an assessment order was passed under section 144 read, with sections 147/148 making certain addition. Instead of availing the remedy by way of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in usual course, the assessee preferred a revision petition under section 264 before the Commissioner.

However, the Commission rejected such petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant writ-petition before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the remedy available under section 264 is an alternate remedy to the appeal. The provision itself provides for the cases in which the authority shall not revise any order enumerated in sub-section (4).

The revisional authority erred in dismissing the revision petition filed by the assessee merely on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The remedy under section 264 is an alternate remedy to the appeal under section 246. Once the assessee chose to evoke the revisional jurisdiction, the authority was obligated to decide the same according to the provisions of section 264 only.

Further, it is a trite law that in case the court wishes to non-suit the litigant on the issue of maintainability, it ought not to enter into the merits of the case. However, in the instant case, the revisional authority has not only dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable but has also non-suited the assessee on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, the order passed by CIT is erroneous on both counts. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner to decide the revision petitions afresh according to law.

Case Review

List of Cases Referred to

    • Nataraju (HUF) v. Pr. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 467/254 Taxman 357/406 ITR 342 (Kar.) (para 5)
    • Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. v. CIT (International Taxation) [W.P. No. 6052 of 2017, dated 13-11-2017] (para 6)
    • Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan v. Nawaz Imdad Jah Bahadur [2009] 5 SCC 162 (para 12).

Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

«
»

Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India

To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com

Author: Taxmann

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.

The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:

  • The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
  • All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
  • Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
  • Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
  • All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
  • The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
  • Font and size that's easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied