Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Danny Denzongpa (alias Tshering Pintso), an Indian national of Sikkimese origin and a film actor, filed multiple writ petitions challenging orders dated 4-3-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, rejecting his applications under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1962. The applications sought revision of assessments for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2005-06 to claim exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1990. The petitioner's returns for those years had been processed under Section 143(1) and accepted. The Commissioner rejected the applications on the ground that no revision lies against orders passed under Section 143(1). The High Court held that the Commissioner's power under Section 264 is wide and includes the power to revise any order, including an intimation under Section 143(1). The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the Commissioner to decide the applications afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The court also directed that the Commissioner shall not reject the applications on the ground that they are not maintainable against orders under Section 143(1).
Headnote
A) Income Tax - Exemption under Section 10(26AAA) - Retrospective Effect - Sikkimese individual claiming exemption on income from sources in Sikkim - The petitioner, an Indian national of Sikkimese origin, sought revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 for assessment years 1997-98 to 2005-06 to claim exemption under Section 10(26AAA) inserted by Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1990 - The Commissioner rejected the applications holding that no revision lies against orders under Section 143(1) - Held that the Commissioner has power to revise any order under Section 264, including intimation under Section 143(1), and the rejection was erroneous (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 seeking benefit of Section 10(26AAA) inserted retrospectively from 1-4-1990, on the ground that the assessments were completed under Section 143(1) and no revision lies against such orders.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders dated 4-3-2010, and remanded the matters back to the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the applications under Section 264 afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The court directed that the Commissioner shall not reject the applications on the ground that they are not maintainable against orders under Section 143(1).
Law Points
- Section 10(26AAA) of Income Tax Act
- 1962
- retrospective effect from 1-4-1990
- Sikkimese individual
- income from any source in State of Sikkim
- revision under Section 264
- Commissioner's power to revise orders
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 35
Writ Petition No.1549 of 2010 with Writ Petition No.1550 of 2010, Writ Petition No.1552 of 2010, Writ Petition No.1554 of 2010, Writ Petition No.1555 of 2010, Writ Petition No.1561 of 2010, Writ Petition No.1641 of 2010, Writ Petition No.1658 of 2010
Dr. K Shivram, Ajay R Singh, Renu Choudhari for Petitioner; D K Kamwal for Respondents
Danny Denzongpa (Alias Tshering Pintso)
Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Mumbai; Income Tax Officer 3(2)(2), Mumbai; Union of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders of Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting applications under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1962 for revision of assessments to claim exemption under Section 10(26AAA).
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the Commissioner's orders and to direct the Commissioner to allow the applications under Section 264 and grant exemption under Section 10(26AAA).
Filing Reason
The Commissioner rejected the petitioner's applications under Section 264 on the ground that no revision lies against orders passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1962.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner of Income Tax passed orders dated 4-3-2010 rejecting the petitioner's applications under Section 264 for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2005-06.
Issues
Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax has the power under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 to revise an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act.
Whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner's applications under Section 264 on the ground that no revision lies against orders under Section 143(1).
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that Section 10(26AAA) was inserted with retrospective effect from 1-4-1990 and the Commissioner has power under Section 264 to revise any order, including an intimation under Section 143(1).
The respondents argued that no revision lies against orders passed under Section 143(1) as they are not appealable orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The Commissioner of Income Tax has the power under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 to revise any order passed by an authority subordinate to him, including an intimation under Section 143(1). The rejection of the petitioner's applications on the ground that no revision lies against orders under Section 143(1) was erroneous.
Judgment Excerpts
Since the orders passed under Section 264 of the said Act are identical and since the Petitions involving a common question, they are all heard together and disposed of.
The Petitioner is an Indian National of Sikkimese origin.
The Petitioner is seeking certain benefits which have been conferred on account of insertion of Section 10(26AAA) by the Finance Act, 2008, which has been incorporated with retrospective effect from 1-4-1990.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed applications under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, seeking revision of assessments for assessment years 1997-98 to 2005-06 to claim exemption under Section 10(26AAA). The Commissioner rejected the applications by orders dated 4-3-2010. The petitioner then filed the present writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging those orders.
Acts & Sections
- Income Tax Act, 1962: 10(26AAA), 143(1), 264
