Parijat Chemicals (P.) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer

A.R. Tiwari, J.—This is a petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act. Dr. V.V. Devsthale is its director. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of fine aromatic chemicals, perfumery, compounds, drugs, intermediates, etc., and also of taking over as a going concern, the partnership business carried on under the name and style of Sunita Aromatics, Indore. The firm was assessed to income tax for the first assessment year, i.e., 1974-75. The firm obtained registration under the relevant provisions of the income tax Act, 1961. Various assessment orders were passed. The petitioner filed returns showing losses at Rs. 1,74,510 and Rs. 2,29,947 for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81, respectively. For non-compliance with the notices u/s 143(2) of the Act, the ITO completed the assessments ex parte determining the total income at Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs, respectively. It appears that the petitioner did not file any application u/s 146 of the Act against the assessment orders passed by the ITO. The petitioner preferred appeals against these assessment orders on 10-1-1984, before the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Indore. These two appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in limine on 3-3-1984, as time-barred. An application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in submitting the appeals for these two years was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The present petitions u/s 264 of the Act have been filed on 27-7-1984, and are thus late by nearly four months. The petitioner filed an application dated 21-2-1985, and a written submission dated 5-3-1985. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 4 (Commissioner of income tax, Bhopal), u/s 264 (Annexure-P-23), the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The respondents have filed the return in opposition. I have heard both the sides.

As urged by the counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary for me to examine the validity of the orders or the merits of the matter. He limited this petition to the grievance of improper rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay in the submission of the case u/s 264.

The application u/s 264 was filed on 27-7-1984, and was barred by nearly four months as the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was passed on 3-3-1984.

The counsel for the respondents submitted that if the order disposing of the application seeking condonation of delay is demolished, then the matter may be left to the discretion of the authority for reconsideration of the application afresh and that the respondents may be left free to object to the prayer of condonation of delay.

In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, it is held that the Court should adopt a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay.

In view of the submissions of both the sides, I find it fit not to express any opinion on the question of condonation, but demolish the order so far as it rejected the application dated 21-2-1985, seeking condonation of delay with the direction to the authorities to revivify this application and to decide it afresh after hearing both the sides in this behalf. For this purpose, the points posed or opposed shall also be treated as open and litigable. The authority shall also take into account the conduct of the petitioner, the time spent in other proceedings and the desirability or otherwise of examination of the matter on the merits for doing justice between the parties and decide the question afresh in conformity with law. If the authority elects to condone the delay, then the application submitted u/s 264 shall be heard and decided on the merits. This petition is, thus, disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.