PRAVIN Vs. JAIDEV COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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 respondent No. 1, under Section 264 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (the 'I. T. Act'), dated March 26, 1992, in respect ofthe assessment years 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 a Development Officer for the Life Insurance Corporation of India and was in receipt of the 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 the incentive bonus should be exempted under the provisions of the Income -tax 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.) THE respondent, Commissioner of Income -tax, did not find favour with the claim for condonation of delay holding that the decision of the appellate authority for the assessment year 1982 -83 in favour of the assessee would not give rise to a right to the assessee to have filed a belated revision application for seven years and to claim certain deductions for the incentive bonus given by the Life Insurance Corporation. According to him, each assessment year is separate and independent proceedings and each claim has to be taken up within the appropriate time frame. He, therefore, held that the assessee was not prevented from making a revision application within the stipulated period, and, therefore, the revision came to be dismissed on the technical ground of barred by limitation.