By K. B. Bhujle
Advocate
27 KLJ Organic Ltd vs. CIT (IT) [2022] 444 ITR 62 (Del) A.Y.: 2018-19 Date of order: 18th February, 2022 Ss. 248 and 264 of ITA 1961 and S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1963
Revision — Limitation — Assessee filing and pursuing appeal mistakenly under section 248 resulting in delay in filing revision petition — Revision petition in time if the period spent in prosecuting appeal excluded — Matter remanded to CommissionerFor the A.Y. 2018-19, the Commissioner (International Taxation) rejected the revision petition filed by the assessee under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 due to the delay in filing the petition.
The assessee filed a writ petition submitting that under a bona fide mistake of law and relying on the earlier orders passed by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) in its favour on the similar issue, it had filed and pursued an appeal u/s. 248 under the belief that the order was appealable and hence the delay.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and held as under:
“If the time spent by the assessee in prosecuting the appeal u/s. 248 was excluded, the revision petition filed u/s. 264 would be within the limitation period. On the facts section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was attracted and the assessee was entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Inter
