M/S. K. R. PRASAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/2675/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01005124202527 March 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the revisional authority erred in dismissing the revision petition solely on the ground of limitation without considering the proviso to Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the material on record clearly established that the petitioner did not receive the intimation dated February 24, 2016, and was unaware of it. Therefore, there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revision petition. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the revisional authority for reconsideration on merits, without reference to limitation. The delay in filing the revision petition was condoned. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit additional pleadings and documents. The ratio decidendi is that a revision petition dismissed solely on limitation, when there is sufficient cause for delay due to non-receipt of intimation, should be reconsidered on merits after condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. K. R. Prasad, filed its Income Tax returns for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 on September 28, 2015. The respondents issued an Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated February 24, 2016, which the petitioner claims it did not receive at that time. The petitioner became aware of an outstanding tax demand of Rs. 1,62,290/- only upon receiving an email on September 16, 2022. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. This revision petition was dismissed by the revisional authority on October 21, 2024, on the grounds that it was barred by limitation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revisional authority erred in dismissing the revision petition solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the proviso to Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the revision petition was due to the non-receipt of the intimation dated February 24, 2016, and that it had no knowledge of the demand until September 16, 2022. Therefore, there was sufficient cause for the delay, and the proviso to Section 264(3) should have been considered. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the revenue on this specific issue. However, the revisional authority's order, which was impugned, dismissed the petition on limitation, implying the revenue's stance was that the delay was not justifiable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 264,Section 264(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13413 WP No. 2675 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S. K. R. PRASAD, NO. 44/1, A & B BHARAT APARTMENTS, RACE COURSE ROAD, FAIRFIELD LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 001, KARNATAKA, PAN: AABFK1034H REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. ASHOK A. KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDA REDDY K. G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU-2, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095, KARNATAKA.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING,

80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK,

NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA,

BENGALURU – 560 095, KARNATAKA

3.

THE SECRETARY,

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,

CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NORTH BLOCK,

NEW DELHI – 110 001

REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL / JOINT/

DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13413 WP No. 2675 of 2025

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY AN ORDER, DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT BEARING NO. CPC/1516/A5/1525820932 DATED 24.02.2016 FOR THE AY 2015-16 IN ANNEXURE-D GENERATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

“A. Quash by an order, writ or direction in the nature of certiorari the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act bearing No.CPC/1516/A5/1525820932 dated 24.02.2016 for the AY:2015-16 in Annexure-“D” generated by the 3rd Respondent.

B. Quash by an order, writ or direction in the nature of certiorari the order u/s. 264 of the Act bearing No.ITBA/REV/F/REV7/2024-25/10698201601(1) dated 21.10.2024 for AY: 2015-16 in Annexure-“E” passed by the 1st Respondent.

C. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may think fit in the interest of justice and equity.

2.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the petitioner filing Income tax returns for the

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13413 WP No. 2675 of 2025

Assessment Year 2015-16 on 28.09.2015, the respondents said to have issued an Intimation dated 24.02.2016 to the petitioner who contends that he did not receive the same at that time. It is contended that it is only subsequently when he received an email on 16.09.2022 that the petitioner learnt that there was an outstanding tax demand of Rs.1,62,290/- raised by the respondents, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which came to be dismissed by the Revisional authority as barred by limitation vide impugned order dated 21.10.2024 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

4.

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the only reason for dismissal of the revision petition is that the same was barred by limitation being beyond the prescribed period of one year as contemplated under Section 264(3) of the I.T.Act. However, the revisional authority failed to consider and appreciate the proviso to Section 264(3) which contemplates that the delay in filing the revision petition can be condoned in the event there was sufficient

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13413 WP No. 2675 of 2025

cause made out by the petitioner; in the instant case, the material on record clearly establishes that the Intimation dated 24.02.2016 was not received by the petitioner who was neither communicated with the same nor was aware or had knowledge about the intimation in any other manner and consequently, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to enable the petitioner to put forth all his contentions on merits without reference to limitation, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the revisional authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-E dated 21.10.2024 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law without reference to limitation, which stands answered/concluded in favour of the petitioner by virtue of this order.

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13413 WP No. 2675 of 2025

(iv) The delay in filing revision petition stands condoned.

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., before the Revisional authority, which shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

BMC/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 105

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →