- Sri Kaushik Narayan Bhattacharya Son of Krishnendu Narayan Bhattacharya Vs PCIT (Jharkhand High Court)
- Core Issue: Maintainability of Revision Under Section 264
- Facts of the Case
- Revisional Authority’s Finding
- Jharkhand High Court Finding and Observation
- Section 264(4)(a) Bar After Expiry of Appeal Limitation
Sri Kaushik Narayan Bhattacharya Son of Krishnendu Narayan Bhattacharya Vs PCIT (Jharkhand High Court)
The Jharkhand High Court set aside the Revisional Authority’s order dated 14.03.2024, which had dismissed the petitioner’s revision under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as not maintainable while also making observations on merits. The Court noted that under Section 264(4)(a), revisional powers would not be exercised where an appeal lies, has not been filed, and the time for filing the appeal has not expired, or where the assessee has not waived the right of appeal. In the present case, the limitation period for filing an appeal against the assessment order had already expired, and there was no material showing that an appeal or condonation application had been filed or that there was any waiver. The Court therefore held that the Revisional Authority was not justified in refusing to exercise revisional jurisdiction or treating the revision as not maintainable. The matter was restored to the Revisional Authority to decide the revision afresh on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations in the set-aside order. All merits-based contentions were kept open.
Where the statutory period for filing an appeal against an assessment order has already expired and no appeal or application for condonation is pending, the bar contained in section 264(4)(a) does not operate to prevent exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 264. The Revisional Authority cannot reject the revision merely on the ground that an appellate remedy was available during the expired limitation period.
Core Issue: Maintainability of Revision Under Section 264
The principal issue was whether a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was maintainable against an assessment order where the statutory period for filing an appeal had already expired and the assessee had not filed an appeal or an application seeking condonation of delay. The further issue was whether the Revisional Authority, after holding the revision to be non-maintainable, could nevertheless make observations on the merits of the assessment.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the order dated 14 March 2024 passed by the Revisional Authority under section 264, whereby the revision petition against the assessment order dated 26 December 2022, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B, was rejected as not maintainable. The Revisional Authority proceeded on the basis that the assessee had an appellate remedy against the assessment order and had chosen to invoke section 264 instead. The petitioner contended that the revision was maintainable because the limitation period for filing the appeal had already expired and, therefore, the statutory restriction contained in section 264(4) was no longer attracted. It was also contended that once the Revisional Authority had concluded that the revision was not maintainable, it ought not to have entered into or made observations regarding the merits of the case.
Revisional Authority’s Finding
The Revisional Authority held that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order and, instead of pursuing that remedy, had preferred revision under section 264. On this basis, it concluded that the revision petition was not maintainable. At the same time, the Revisional Authority made certain observations concerning the merits of the matter.
Jharkhand High Court Finding and Observation
Section 264(4)(a) Bar After Expiry of Appeal Limitation
The High Court examined section 264(4), particularly clause (a), and observed that the circumstances in which revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised are specifically prescribed. The statutory restriction applies where an appeal against the order lies but the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or, in the specified cases, where the assessee has not waived the right of appeal. The Court therefore held that the mere availability of an appellate remedy at an earlier point of time cannot indefinitely operate as a bar to section 264 jurisdiction after the appellate limitation period has expired.
