Madras HC: Delay in Filing Tax Application to Be Reviewed

E. P. Muthukumar (HUF) Vs PCIT (Madras High Court)

Introduction: The Madras High Court has taken up the case of E. P. Muthukumar (HUF) vs. Principal Chief Income Tax (PCIT). The court’s decision was made at the time of admission, and it revolves around the delay in filing an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act against an assessment order dated September 24, 2021, for the assessment year 2017-18.

Detailed Analysis: The court acknowledged that the petitioner provided reasons for not participating in the proceedings before the assessment order dated September 24, 2021, and for not filing the application under Section 264 of the Act. However, the court pointed out that it was necessary for the petitioner to file a separate application in the form of a Miscellaneous Petition to seek condonation of the delay in filing the application for revision under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the aforementioned order.

As a result, the impugned order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondents for a fresh review. The petitioner was instructed to file a Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay in accordance with the proviso to Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within 30 days of receiving a copy of this order. Subject to compliance with this requirement, the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders regarding the application for condoning the delay. If the delay was to be condoned based on the petitioner’s petition filed within the specified timeframe, the application/revision would be considered and decided on its merits.

Conclusion: In the case of E. P. Muthukumar (HUF) vs. PCIT, the Madras High Court has directed the authorities to review a delay in filing a tax application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case to the respondents for further consideration, with instructions for the petitioner to file a Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay within 30 days. The court’s decision aims to address the issue of delay and ensure a fair review of the case on its merits.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Mr. R. S. Balaji, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. This writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission, as the impugned order has been passed on the sole ground the petitioner has not filed an application to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act against the Assessment order dated 24.09.2021 for the Assessment year 2017-18.

4. Although the petitioner has given reasons in para 7 as to why the petitioner could not participate in the proceedings prior to passing of the Assessment order dated 24.09.2021 and the reasons for not filing the application under Section 264 of the Act in para 11 of the application, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to file a separate application in the form of Miscellaneous Petition for condoning the delay in filing the application for revision under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 24.09.2021.

5. Considering the above, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits, subject to the petitioner filing a Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay in terms of proviso to Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to such compliance, within such time, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders on the application for condoning the delay. In case, the delay is to be condoned based on the averments in the petition proposed to be filed by the petitioner within such time, the application/revision shall be considered and disposed the same on merits.

6. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.