SRI SRIDHARAN VINAY KUMAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3

PDF · subscribers
WP/24968/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01054191202619 August 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD10 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in rejecting the revision petition solely on the ground that Section 154 and Section 264 proceedings are independent. The Court found that the PCIT-3 was conferred with the power under Section 264 to examine sufficient cause for condoning delay. The Court was persuaded that the petitioner's circumstances, including filing repeated applications with the Central Processing Unit (CPC) which were rejected without proper examination, and the lack of response to his application with the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Court quashed the impugned order and restored the proceedings for reconsideration, directing the PCIT-3 to condone the delay and consider the revision petition on its merits, leaving all other questions open for consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Sridharan Vinay Kumar, is challenging an order dated July 15, 2026, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT-3) rejecting his revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 on grounds of delay. The petitioner had inadvertently uploaded Form 16 for AY 2020-21 while filing his return for AY 2021-22, leading to an incorrect demand of over Rs. 9,00,000. He also claimed an incorrect TDS amount. He filed multiple rectification applications under Section 154 of the Act between January and February 2023, and an application with the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, without success. Subsequently, he filed a revision petition under Section 264, which was rejected by the PCIT-3 for being time-barred, without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have examined the sufficiency of cause for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, instead of rejecting it solely on the ground that Section 154 and Section 264 proceedings are independent? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the PCIT-3 should have considered whether there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revision petition, as contemplated by the proviso to Section 264 of the Act, and not dismissed it by stating that Sections 154 and 264 are independent and cannot coalesce. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner repeatedly filed rectification applications without invoking revision jurisdiction, could have invoked revision jurisdiction earlier, and that the delay was due to the petitioner's own conduct in filing multiple rectification applications before seeking revision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24968 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI SRIDHARAN VINAY KUMAR S/O MR. R. SRIDHARAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2ND FLOOR, PRAKRUTHI CRYSTAL, VISHWESHWARAIAH ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560085 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR J JAIN, ADVOCATE A/W SMT. GEETHA RANI K., ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 CENTRAL REVENUE (CR) BUILDING, NO 1, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(3)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560095.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

3.

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT (CPC) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BENGALURU-560500. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2

SRI ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 THE CONSTITUTION INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ITBA/COM/F/17/2026-27/1091125760(1) DATED 15.07.2026 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 264 FOR AY 2021-22, ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE A; B. ISSUE AS FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR OTHERWISE, DIRECTING THE LEARNED FIRST RESPONDENTS TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING REVISION PETITION DATED 25.05.2026 TO RESTORE AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERITS, AFTER AFFORDING THE PETITIONER A PROPER, EFFECTIVE, AND PERSONAL OPPORTUNITY HEARING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE G FOR AY 2021-22.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner’s grievance is with the first respondent’s Order dated 15.07.2026 [Annexure-A] refusing to exercise the powers of revision under Section 264n of the Income Tax Act [for short, ‘the IT Act’] on the ground of delay.

2.

The petitioner’s case can be stated thus. The petitioner was employed with M/s. Target Corporation India Private Limited during Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 and he has filed Returns for both these years. In filing the return for the Assessment Year 2021-22, he has uploaded Form No.16 for the year 2020-21. There is a demand for over Rs.9,00,000/- for the year 2021-22 with the Authorities taking the income based on this Form

allowing the Tax Deducted at Source [TDS] for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The TDS deducted for this year is much lower because the income for this Assessment Year is lower than previous Assessment Year. The petitioner has stated thus:

Consequently, income that had already been offered to tax in AY 2020-21 was erroneously reported again in the return for AY 2021-22. Also, the petitioner inadvertently claimed a TDS of Rs.26,48,826/- (pertaining to AY 2020-21) instead of Rs.18,11,843/-, which was the correct TDS for AY 2021-22.

3.

The petitioner has filed applications under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the Act’] for rectification. The details of these applications are as follows. Rectification Date Acknowledgement No 15 Jan 2023 922604750150123 27 Jan 2023 935395730270123 21 Feb 2023 961926370210223

The petitioner has also filed applications with the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, but there is no

response to such application. It is in circumstances that the petitioner has next filed his application under Section 264 of the Act for revision. The first respondent has rejected the same with the following reasons. “Without prejudice to the above, it is observed that the grievance of the applicant arises from an inadvertent error while filing the return of income, resulting in incorrect reporting of salary income and corresponding TDS. However, the present proceedings are not proceedings under Section 154 for rectification of mistake but are revisionary proceedings under Section 264, wherein the maintainability of the petition is subject to fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed under the Act. Since the applicant has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 264[3], the revision petition is barred by limitation and is liable to be rejected in limine without examining the merits of the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently, the revision petition filed under Section 264 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is dismissed as time-barred.”

4.

Sri. Narendra Kumar J Jain submits that the first respondent ought to have examined whether there was a sufficient cause in applying for revision as contemplated under the proviso to Section 264 of the Act without rejecting the application stating that Sections 154 and 264 of the Act are independent and cannot coalesce together. Sri M Thirumalesh, the learned senior standing counsel for the first and second respondents who accepts notice for these respondents and Sri Aravind V Chavan, a learned standing counsel for the third respondent who accepts notice for this respondent, are heard for the disposal of the petition and the terms for such disposal. The learned Standing Counsel submit that:  this Court may examine that the petitioner has repeatedly filed rectification without invoking the revision jurisdiction,

 the petitioner could have invoked the revision jurisdiction without asking for rectification; and  the reason for the delay is the petitioner's own conduct in filing repeated applications for rectification before invoking revision jurisdiction.

5.

However, this Court is of the view that the question for consideration, if the first respondent has not examined the question of delay as contemplated under the proviso to Section 264 of the Act, should this Court intervene and the terms for such intervention. The first respondent is indeed conferred with the power under Section 264 of the Act to examine whether there is sufficient cause and to condone the delay if satisfied that there is sufficient

cause1. The first respondent has rejected the application on the ground that the proceedings under Sections 154 and 264 of the Act are different and cannot coalesce. There cannot be any dispute about these proceedings being independent. The first responder should have examined circumstances to reason whether the delay must be condoned or not.

6.

The next question is whether this Court can opine that the cause offered by the petitioner is sufficient for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 254 of the Act. The delay is

1 Section 264(3)

(3) In the case of an application for revision under this section by the assessee, the application must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him or the date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier : Provided that Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, admit an application made after the expiry of that period.

over of over 1,000 days, and this question is considered in the light of two circumstances. [A] The petitioner has filed repeated with Central Processing Unit [CPC] and have been rejected referring to the TDS deductions in terms of Form No.26AS without actually examining the petitioner's case whether there was any error apparent justifying rectification. [B] The petitioner's application with the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer has received no response, and the petitioner has applied under Section 264 of the Act thereafter. This Court is persuaded to opine that these circumstances offer sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The next aspect is whether there must

be a revision in the light of the facts asserted by the petitioner but that is an aspect that should be considered within the limits of the jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Act and hence the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part. [B] The first respondent's impugned order dated 15.07.2026 [Annexure-A] is quashed and the proceedings are restored for reconsideration condoning the delay in filing the application leaving open all questions otherwise for consideration.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →