The High Court of Delhi recently comprising of a bench of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla excluded the time spent in prosecuting a tax appeal before an authority devoid of the jurisdiction in computing the limitation period for filing a revision petition under the Income Tax Act, 1961. (KLJ Organic Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2)
The bench stated, "Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted to the facts of the present case and the Petitioner is entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction."
Facts of the case
The present writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -2 [‘CIT(IT)’], New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Petitioner in this case sought a direction to the Respondent to consider the Revision Petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 264 Income Tax Act,1961 (‘the Act’) on merits after condoning the delay in preferring the petition.
Contention of the parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that vide impugned order the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 264 of the Act was arbitrarily dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Further, the counsel for the Petitioner stated that the impugned order is erroneous in terms of proviso (3) to Section 264 of the Act since the CIT dismissed the Revision Petition as time-barred despite there being sufficient cause for the delay.
Counsel for the Petitioner added that the Petitioner came to know that the said appeal was not maintainable as the Petitioner had not paid the tax determined in the order passed under Section 195(2) of the Act.
Courts observation and judgment
The court in the present writ petition stated, "In the opinion of this Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted to the facts of the present case and the Petitioner is entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction.
This Court is of the view that if the time spent by the Petitioner in prosecuting the appeal under Section 248 of the Act is excluded, then the Revision Petition filed under Section 264 would be within time."
Furthermore the court laid its rationale stating "Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the CIT(IT) to decide the Revision Petition on merit in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merit of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open."
Considering the rationale stated above, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments