Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Hargovind Pandey Vs Pr. CCE (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) No. 4705/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/07/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Hargovind Pandey Vs Pr. CCE (Delhi High Court)

When Section 264(3) uses the expression to ‘the date on which he otherwise came to know of it’, it refers to the date on which the Petitioner actually had a copy of the intimation. He could either get it from the Department or get it from any other source. In other words, it would not be sufficient that the Petitioner came to know of the fact that his return had been processed. Till such time the Petitioner had a copy of the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the limitation period under Section 264 (3) of the Act would not begin to run. Considering that Section 264 is a provision intended to benefit the Assessee, no other interpretation is possible on a plain reading of it.

It seemed that assessee’s application under section 264 was rejected on ground of limitation by calculating the starting date for the period of limitation from 25-4-2014, the date of issuance of the refund whereas as per assessee actual intimation under 143(1) was 13-4-2015. When section 264(3) uses the expression to ‘the date on which he otherwise came to know of it’, it refers to the date on which the assessee actually had a copy of the intimation. It would not be sufficient that he came to know of the fact that his return had been processed. Till such time the assessee had a copy of the intimation under section 143(1), the limitation period under section 264 (3) would not begin to run.  The court was of the view that in the present case, the PCIT was in error in holding that the revision petition was time barred.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21stDecember, 2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of I ncome Tax (‘PCI T’) rejecting the Petitioner’s application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) on the ground of limitation.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031