Shushilaben Jayantibhai Patel Vs PCIT (Gujarat High Court)
The petitioner, an 82-year-old senior citizen, approached the High Court challenging two orders: one passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner, and another passed under section 144 by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2017-18. She also challenged the consequential demand notice issued under section 156. As the matter involved a short issue, the Court proceeded with final hearing.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Commissioner failed to exercise the wide discretionary powers available under section 264. Instead of independently considering the documents and circumstances, the Commissioner relied mainly on the assessment proceedings to reject the petitioner’s revision application. The counsel submitted that the Commissioner ought to have examined the audit report and evidence showing payment of tax amounting to Rs. 3,79,710 for Assessment Year 2017-18. He further highlighted that the petitioner was suffering from hypertension, diabetes, type-2 depression, and Alzheimer’s disease for seven years, and due to her ill health and inadvertence of her Accountant and Manager, she could not file the return for the relevant year. The counsel relied on earlier decisions, including a 1979 judgment in C. Parikh & Co. and a recent decision of 1 October 2024, to support the argument that the Commissioner’s refusal was contrary to the scope and intent of section 264.
