Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hindalco Industries Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 6 March 2019 passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, rejecting its application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had filed its return of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) for Assessment Year 2009-10 and claimed a refund. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, and an intimation was issued. The petitioner later filed a revision application under Section 264 seeking to revise that intimation, but the application was rejected on two grounds: (i) there was a substantial delay in filing the application, and (ii) the intimation under Section 143(1) was not an assessment order and therefore not amenable to revision under Section 264. The court considered the legal issue of whether an intimation under Section 143(1) constitutes an assessment order for the purposes of Section 264. The court held that an intimation under Section 143(1) is indeed an assessment order, relying on the definition of 'assessment' in the Act and the fact that Section 143(1) uses the word 'assessment'. The court also noted that the Principal Chief Commissioner had the power to condone delay under Section 264, and that the rejection on the ground of delay without considering the merits was improper. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Principal Chief Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits, directing that the delay be condoned and the application be decided within three months.
Headnote
A) Income Tax - Revision under Section 264 - Intimation under Section 143(1) - Whether intimation under Section 143(1) is an assessment order for the purpose of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Held that an intimation under Section 143(1) is an assessment order and the Principal Chief Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain a revision application under Section 264 against such intimation (Paras 5-10). B) Income Tax - Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Revision under Section 264 - The petitioner filed a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a delay of about 9 years - The Principal Chief Commissioner rejected the application on the ground of delay and that intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment order - Held that the delay should be condoned and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is an assessment order for the purpose of revision under Section 264 of the Act, and whether the delay in filing the revision application should be condoned.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 6 March 2019, and remanded the matter to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh consideration on merits. The court directed that the delay in filing the revision application be condoned and the application be decided within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Section 264 of the Income Tax Act
- 1961
- Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act
- Fringe Benefit Tax
- Revision
- Assessment Order
- Limitation
