PRAVIN V ASHAR Vs. JAIDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short, but interesting question which has surfaced in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, as to whether the impugned order of the respondent No.1, under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), dated 26.3.92, in respect of assessment year 1975-76 to 1981-82 (7 years), whereby, the revision application of the petitioner-assessee came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation, is legal, valid or justified or not?

(2.) The petitioner-assessee was working as Development Officer for the Life Insurance Corporation of India and was in receipt of incentive bonus, partly, in order to reimburse the expenditure required to be incurred for procuring business. He raised this issue, for the first time, in the assessment year 1982-83, contending that since part of the incentive bonus received is required to be spent for procuring business, part of incentive bonus should be exempted under the provisions of IT Act. The contention was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar, whereby, he held that the petitioner is entitled to deduction at 40 per cent of the incentive bonus as expenses. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, later on, confirmed it.

(3.) Prompted by this, the petitioner-assessee filed Revision Application on 20.1.84 before the respondent for assessment years 1975-76 to 1981-82, against the orders under section 143(3) passed by the ITO, claiming the part of the incentive bonus as permissible expenditure. Since there was delay, as the revision was for past 7 years assessment, the assesse, inter alia, contended that the order of the first appellate authority for the assessment year 1982-83 came to be recorded on 22nd December, 1983 and within a period of one month, the revision came to be filed on 20.1.84, for the entire block of seven years by invoking the aids of the provisions of section 264 of the IT Act. It is on this ground, the delay was sought to be condoned.