BIS RAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7208/2003HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01044501200328 October 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad, to reconsider the petitioner's case. This reconsideration is to be done in light of the order dated 06.08.2001 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, and the instructions issued by the authorities, specifically mentioning a circular dated 09.02.2001 from the Commissioner, Rohtak, which states that compensation and interest thereon would be considered income of the year of receipt. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel could not controvert the need for reconsideration based on these authorities. The Commissioner was directed to complete this exercise within three months. Additionally, if the petitioner had not filed an application for waiver for the assessment years in question, they were directed to move an appropriate application within four weeks.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bis Ram (now deceased through LRs.), filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 07.03.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad. This order rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 1994-1995 to 1998-1999. The Commissioner had rejected the application on the grounds of maintainability, opining that an intimation under Section 143(1) of the IT Act is not an 'order' and therefore, Section 264 powers could not be invoked. The revenue's counsel, when confronted with a prior order dated 06.08.2001 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula for assessment years 1991-1992 to 1998-1999, could not controvert that the matter needed reconsideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be considered an 'order' for the purpose of invoking the revisional powers under Section 264 of the IT Act? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought reconsideration of its application under Section 264. Revenue's Contention: The revenue initially rejected the application on the ground that an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an order, thus Section 264 was not maintainable. However, upon being confronted with a prior order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and a circular, the revenue's counsel conceded that the matter needed reconsideration in light of these authorities. The revenue relied on the order dated 06.08.2001 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, and a circular dated 09.02.2001 issued by the Commissioner, Rohtak, regarding the treatment of compensation and interest as income of the year of receipt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

CWP-7208-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.10.2025

Bis Ram Now Deceased Through LRs.

...Petitioner Versus

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad and Another

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present:- Mr. Ishwinderpal Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Standing Counsel

for the respondents.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 07.03.2003 whereby Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad has rejected its application under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘IT Act’) for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 1998-1999. 2. From the perusal of impugned order dated 07.03.2003, it is evident that Commissioner of Income Tax has rejected application of the petitioner on the ground of maintainability. The respondent has formed an opinion that intimation under Section 143 (1) of IT Act cannot be said to be an order, thus, power under Section 264 of IT Act cannot be invoked.

3.

On being confronted with order dated 06.08.2001 passed by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula for the assessment years PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.10.29 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7208-2003 (O&M)

-2- 1991-1992 to 1998-1999, learned counsel representing the respondents expressed her inability to controvert that matter needs to be reconsidered in the light of order dated 06.08.2001 as well as circular dated 09.02.2001 issued by Commissioner, Rohtak to the effect that compensation and interest thereon would be considered income of the year of receipt.

4.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner agrees to aforesaid arrangement.

5.

In the wake of statement of both sides, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad to reconsider case of petitioner in the light of order dated 06.08.2001 (Annexure P-26) as well as instructions issued by authorities.

6.

Let the needful be done within three months from today.

7.

If the petitioner has not filed application seeking waiver for the assessment years in question, he would move an appropriate application within four weeks from today.

8.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

(PARMOD GOYAL)

JUDGE

28.10.

2025 Prince Chawla

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.10.29 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →