NARESH JOSHI S/O LATE SHRI RAM KARAN JOSHI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2

PDF · subscribers
CW/7200/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02035207202304 July 2023Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the PCIT's rejection of the revision application on the ground of delay was per se illegal. The Court found that Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act clearly indicates that for reckoning the period of limitation for a revision application, the relevant date is either the date of communication of the order or the date on which the assessee otherwise comes to know of the order. By considering the date of passing of the order, the PCIT had incorrectly applied the limitation period. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the PCIT, Jaipur-2. The Court directed the PCIT to decide the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act on its own merits. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Naresh Joshi, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Jaipur-2. The grievance was the rejection of an application seeking revision and refund of a TDS amount. The PCIT had rejected the revision application on the ground of delay. The petitioner contended that the PCIT incorrectly reckoned the period of limitation by considering the date of passing of the order, instead of the date of communication of the order or the date the assessee came to know of it, as stipulated under Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act was rejected on the correct grounds of limitation, considering the provisions of Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the PCIT erred in rejecting the revision application on grounds of delay. The petitioner contended that the limitation period should have been reckoned from the date of communication of the order or the date the assessee became aware of it, as per Section 264(3), and not from the date the order was passed. The petitioner relied on the plain reading of Section 264(3). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue regarding the limitation period or the interpretation of Section 264(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 264(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2023:RJ-JP:13175-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7200/2023 Naresh Joshi S/o Late Shri Ram Karan Joshi, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of G-7-B, Vinoba Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, NCT Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Charu Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashwat Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Pathak, on advance copy HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order 04/07/2023 Heard. Though learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy prays for short adjournment on the ground that arguing counsel Shri Sandeep Pathak is unwell, we are not inclined to grant any adjourment. Shri Anant Kasliwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Charu Pareek for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is on account of rejection of an application seeking revision and refund of TDS amount. We have gone through the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the PCIT, Jaipur-2. Though the provisions contained in Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act were quoted, which clearly show

[2023:RJ-JP:13175-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-7200/2023] that for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation, the date of communication of the order or the date on which the assessee otherwise comes to know of the order is relevant, the revision application has been rejected on the ground of delay taking into consideration the date of passing of the order which is per se illegal. In view of the above, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 31.03.2023 and direct the PCIT, Jaipur-2 to decide the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act on its own merits. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J 23- DHARMENDRA RAKHECHA

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →