2011 (1) TMI 185 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 10 years and 153 days in preferring revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961 petitioner sought condonation of delay of 10 years and 153 days in preferring revision before the respondent under Section 264 of the Act - respondent consider the reason stated in the application seeking condonation of delay that the petitioner was advised not to approach till the proceedings reached finality and whether the petitioner was justified in waiting for the final decision in the matter - respondent directed to decide the applications seeking condonation of delay afresh and pass speaking order considering all the contentions raised by the petitioner in accordance with law Petition disposed off

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to orders refusing to condone delay in preferring revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged two orders dated 29th October, 2009, and 28th October, 2009, which refused to condone a delay of 10 years and 153 days in preferring revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that they delayed seeking remedy under Section 264 upon receiving retrospective approval based on advice to wait until the issue was settled. The High Court noted that the respondent did not consider whether the petitioner was justified in waiting for the final decision before seeking revision. The Court found that this crucial aspect was not addressed by the respondent, rendering the impugned orders liable to be quashed and set aside.

The High Court held that the impugned orders of 29th October, 2009, and 28th October, 2009, were quashed and set aside. The respondent was directed to reconsider the applications seeking condonation of delay and to pass a speaking order, taking into account all contentions raised by the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petitioner or their representative was instructed to appear before the respondent on 28th February 2011 at 11:00 a.m. The rule was made absolute in the aforementioned terms with no order as to costs.