Mrs.sharadha Murali v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDARW.P.No.17004 of 2019 and WMP.Nos.16565 of 2019 M/s.SMS Labs Services Private LimitedRepresented by its Managing Director Mrs.Sharadha Murali. .. Petitioner vs.1.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Chennai 602, 6[th] Floor, Wanaparthy Block Aayakarbhawan, 121, M.G.Road Nungambakam Chennai – 600 034. 2.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Post Bag No.2 Electronic City Post Office Bangalore – 560500. .. Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1[st]respondent relating to the impugned order in No.6120/264/PCIT-6/2017-18/382 dated 11.02.2019 and quash the same, consequentlydirect the 1[st] respondent to restore petition for revision underSection 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and pass orders allowingclaim of refund of Rs.10,18,014/- and pass such further or otherorders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in thecircumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Mr.K.ThiyagarajanFor Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) ORDER Mr.K.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel on record for writpetitioner is before this Court. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learnedSenior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) accepts notice on behalf ofboth the respondents. 2. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writpetition itself is taken up and is being disposed of. 3. Entire matter turns on a narrow compass. Petitioner is aprivate limited company, but learned counsel for writ petitionersubmits that it is a very closely held company, wherein membersof one family are on the board. It is also submitted that oneMr.G.Murali was the Managing Director of the company, but hedied suddenly on 10.06.2015 and on the date of the death he wasonly 50 years old. It is submitted that being a closely heldcompany, the company was in disarray owing to such untimelydemise. 4. Under such circumstances, the company filed anapplication under Section 264 of 'Income Tax Act, 1961' ('ITAct' for brevity), seeking to revise intimation under Section143(1) of IT Act 27.02.2016. There is no disputation that sucha petition under Section 264 of IT Act ought to have been filedon or before 15.03.2017 as stipulated in sub-section (3) ofSection 264 of IT Act. To be noted, the assessment yearconcerned is 2015-16. 5. However, revision petition under Section 264 of IT Actwas ultimately filed only on 29.01.2018 with a delay of aboutnine months. 6. Reason given for the delay is, sudden demise of ManagingDirector of the closely held company, details of which have beenalluded to supra. 7. There is no disputation or disagreement before this Courtthat first respondent has power to condone the delay underproviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 264 of IT Act. 8. A perusal of proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 264reveals that there is no cap. In other words, Section 5 of theLimitation Act is not excluded and the first respondent haspower to condone delay without any restriction qua length oftime. 9. Under aforesaid scenario, considering the peculiar factsand circumstances of the case on hand, this Court is of the viewthat ends of justice would be served, if the revision sought forby the writ petitioner under Section 264 of IT Act is heard outon merits by condoning delay. 10. In other words, this Court is of the view that it is afit case for condonation of delay which this Court is informedis around nine months. 11. To be noted, under normal circumstances, this Courtwould have put the writ petitioner on terms. However, owing tothe peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case, i.e.,untimely demise of the Managing Director of a closely heldcompany at the age of 50 years, this Court passes the followingorder: 9. Under aforesaid scenario, considering the peculiar factsand circumstances of the case on hand, this Court is of the viewthat ends of justice would be served, if the revision sought forby the writ petitioner under Section 264 of IT Act is heard outon merits by condoning delay. 10. In other words, this Court is of the view that it is afit case for condonation of delay which this Court is informedis around nine months. 11. To be noted, under normal circumstances, this Courtwould have put the writ petitioner on terms. However, owing tothe peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case, i.e.,untimely demise of the Managing Director of a closely heldcompany at the age of 50 years, this Court passes the followingorder: a) order dated 11.02.2019 bearing referenceNo.6120/264/PCIT-6/2017-18/382 made by the firstrespondent is set aside. b) consequently, delay in filing revision underSection 264 of IT Act for assessment year 2015-16by writ petitioner stands condoned. c) as a further consequence, the firstrespondent shall consider the revision filed by thewrit petitioner under Section 264 of IT Act onmerits and pass orders, in accordance with law,within four weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. 12. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petition is closed. vsmTo s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar 1.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Chennai 602, 6[th] Floor, Wanaparthy Block Aayakarbhawan, 121, M.G.Road Nungambakam Chennai – 600 034. 2.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Post Bag No.2 Electronic City Post OfficeBangalore – 560500. +1 CC to Mr.K.Thiyagarajan, Advocate sr 50450. +1 CC to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate sr 50385. W.P.Nos.17004 of 2019and WMP.No.16565 of 2019 RSV(CO)SP(10/07/2019)