Revision – Section 264 of ITA, 1961 – Belated application – Merely because assessee filed application belatedly, revision application could not be rejected without considering cause of delay

Revision
– Section 264 of ITA, 1961 – Belated application – Merely because assessee
filed application belatedly, revision application could not be rejected without
considering cause of delay

The
petitioner filed e-return on 29^th October, 2007. Due to inadvertence
and by a mistake committed by an employee of the petitioner company, both the
gross total income and the total income were shown as Rs. 2.74 crores, instead
of total income being Rs. 56.91 lakh. Therefore, the petitioner filed its
revised return on 26^th July, 2010 altering only the figures in gross
total income and total income without making any changes with respect to the
other columns and with income computation. While doing so, after five years of
filing the revised return, the petitioner company received a communication
dated 7^th August, 2015 stating that there is outstanding tax demand
for the A.Y. 2007-08 of Rs. 87.26 lakhs. The petitioner was not aware of the
intimation issued u/s 143(1) till it was received by him on 23^rd
September, 2015.

The
petitioner approached the first respondent and filed an application u/s 264 on
6^th October, 2015. The same was rejected by the impugned order for
the reason that it was filed beyond the period of limitation.

The
assessee filed a writ petition and challenged the order. The Madras High Court
allowed the writ petition and held as under:

‘(i)      The petitioner claims that gross total
income shown in the original return filed on 29^th October, 2007 as
Rs. 2.74 crores is a factual mistake; and, on the other hand, it is only a sum
of Rs. 56.91 lakh as the sum to be reflected as gross total income in all the
places. In order to rectify such mistake, it is seen that the petitioner has
filed a revised return on 26^th July, 2010. By that time, it seems
that the intimation under section 143(1) raising the demand was issued on 20^th
October, 2008 itself.

(ii)      According to the petitioner, they are not
aware of such intimation. On the other hand, it is contended by the Revenue
that such intimation was readily available in the e-filing portal of the
petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner has approached the first respondent and
filed application u/s. 264 to set right the dispute. However, the fact remains
that such application was filed on 6^th October, 2015 with delay. The
first respondent has specifically pointed out that the petitioner has not filed
any application to condone the delay, specifically indicating the reasons for
such delay. It is also seen that the first respondent has chosen to reject the
application only on the ground that it was filed belatedly. Therefore, the ends
of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the first respondent
Commissioner for reconsidering the matter afresh if the petitioner is in a
position to satisfy the first respondent that the delay in filing such
application u/s 264 was neither wilful nor intentional.’