Revision petition u/s 264 not dismissible on grounds of alternative remedy of filing CIT(A): HC

Case Details: Sahil Machines India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India - [2022] 136 taxmann.com 412 (Punjab & Haryana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ajay Tewari and Pankaj Jain, JJ.
  • Chetan Bansal, Adv. for the Petitioner. 
  • Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel and Varun Issar, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

During the relevant year, an assessment order was passed under section 144 read, with sections 147/148 making certain addition. Instead of availing the remedy by way of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in usual course, the assessee preferred a revision petition under section 264 before the Commissioner.

However, the Commission rejected such petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant writ-petition before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the remedy available under section 264 is an alternate remedy to the appeal. The provision itself provides for the cases in which the authority shall not revise any order enumerated in sub-section (4).

The revisional authority erred in dismissing the revision petition filed by the assessee merely on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The remedy under section 264 is an alternate remedy to the appeal under section 246. Once the assessee chose to evoke the revisional jurisdiction, the authority was obligated to decide the same according to the provisions of section 264 only.

Further, it is a trite law that in case the court wishes to non-suit the litigant on the issue of maintainability, it ought not to enter into the merits of the case. However, in the instant case, the revisional authority has not only dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable but has also non-suited the assessee on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, the order passed by CIT is erroneous on both counts. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner to decide the revision petitions afresh according to law.

Case Review

• • Nataraju (HUF) v. Pr. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 467/254 Taxman 357/406 ITR 342 (Kar.) (para 14) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Nataraju (HUF) v. Pr. CIT [2018] 91 taxmann.com 467/254 Taxman 357/406 ITR 342 (Kar.) (para 5)
  • Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. v. CIT (International Taxation) [W.P. No. 6052 of 2017, dated 13-11-2017] (para 6)
  • Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan v. Nawaz Imdad Jah Bahadur [2009] 5 SCC 162 (para 12).