Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 425 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTApplications u/s 264 for revision in favor of assessee - Condonation of delay - eligible reasons for delay - Held that:- Referring to case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court] it was not necessary for the petitioner to have explained each and every day's delay. On the contrary, the Apex Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. The Apex Court also held there is no presumption that delay is intentional and deliberate, as normally a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. As stated earlier, in the application dated 20th March, 2014 seeking invocation of the power under Section 264, the delay has been adequately explained. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Commissioner has misdirected himself by going into the question whether the petitioners could have made the claim. The question of going into maintainability of the claim made by the petitioners could have been gone into on merits, only if the delay was condoned. Proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 264 confers a statutory power on the Commissioner to condone the delay. Therefore it was not necessary for the Commissioner to have taken recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We direct the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide both Revision Applications on merits as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date on which an authenticated copy of this Order is produced in his office.
|