Case Law Details
BT India Private Limited Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed the dismissal of a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of BT India Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).
The dispute arose from an order dated November 2, 2023, where the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dismissed BT India Private Limited’s revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. This dismissal was based on both the limitation period and substantive observations about the application’s merits. The core issue revolved around whether an intimation under Section 143(1) could be revised under Section 264, a matter complicated by previous judgments and interpretations.
Key Judicial References
1. Supreme Court Judgment: Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited, which dealt with the distinction between assessments under Section 143(1) and those under Section 143(3). The Supreme Court clarified that an intimation under Section 143(1) differs from an assessment under Section 143(3), impacting the applicability of revision procedures under Sections 147 and 148.
2. Delhi High Court Judgment: EPCOS Electronic Components S.A v. Union of India
The petitioner, BT India, countered by citing the Delhi High Court’s decision in EPCOS Electronic Components S.A v. Union of India. This judgment emphasized that an intimation under Section 143(1) could indeed be considered an order for the purposes of Section 264, particularly when the taxpayer identified errors post-filing. This perspective was reinforced by the case of Vijay Gupta v. CIT, which explicitly affirmed the maintainability of revision applications against such intimations.
Court’s Observations
The Delhi High Court noted that BT India had received multiple intimations under Section 143(1), necessitating a careful examination of the request for condonation of delay. The court recognized the limited yet significant questions arising from the case and directed the respondent’s counsel to obtain instructions to facilitate a thorough review.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. We take note of the challenge which stands raised to the impugned order dated 02 November 2023, in terms of which the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has proceeded to dismiss the revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’], not only on account of limitation, but also proceeding to render various observations touching upon the merits of its maintainability itself.
2. We note that insofar as the issue of maintainability of a revision application under Section 264 against an intimation under Section 143(1) is concerned, it has chosen to rest its view on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited1 .
3. However, Mr. Chopra draws our attention to the judgment handed down by a Division Bench of this Court in EPCOS Electronic Components S.A v. Union of India 2 where the decision of the Supreme Court noticed hereinabove was explained as under: –
“13. This court at the outset would like to observe that the decision in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited was in the context of sections 147 and 148 of the Act. If the original assessment was under section 143(3) of the Act then the proviso to section 147 would be attracted and the procedure prescribed thereunder for reopening an assessment would have to be followed. On the other hand, if the return had been accepted by the Department by a mere intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, then a different set of consequences would ensue and there would be then no requirement for the Department, if it were to reopen the assessment, to follow the procedure it would have to had the assessment order been passed under section 143(3) of the Act.
14. The context in the present case is different. Here there is no attempt by the Revenue to reopen the assessment by invoking sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The context here is the assessee realising the mistake made by it while filing the return of paying a higher rate of tax. In such a context the intimation received by the petitioner from the Assessing Officer accepting the return under section 143(1) of the Act would partake the character of an order for the purpose of section 264 of the Act. The question in Vijay Gupta v. CIT (supra) was precisely whether a petition under section 264 of the Act was maintainable against an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. In answering the question in the affirmative this court in Vijay Gupta v. CIT (supra) observed as under (page 659 of 386 ITR):
“The Commissioner further erred in rejecting the application under section 264 holding that intimation under section 143(1) could not be regarded as an order and was thus not amenable to revisionary jurisdiction under section 264 of the Act. The Intimation under section 143(1) is regarded as an order for the purposes of section 264 of the Act. (CIT v. K. V. Manakaram and Co. [2000] 245 ITR 353 (Ker) ; [2000] 111 Taxman 439 (Ker), Assam Roofing Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 316 (Gauhati) and S. R. Koshti v. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 165 (Guj) ; [2005] 146 Taxman 335 (Guj)). He failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not only impugning the intimation under section 143(1) but also the rejection of the application under section 154 of the Act.”
4. Apart from the aforesaid, we note that the petitioner had received more than one intimation under Section 143(1) and consequently the prayer for condonation was liable to be examined in the aforesaid light.
5. In view of the limited nature of questions which arise, we request learned counsel appearing for the respondent to obtain instructions.
6. Let the writ petition be called again on 22.07.2024.
Notes:
1 (2008) 14 SCC 208
2 2019 SCC Online Del 9113
Author Bio
