Charles C. George Vs. Deputyt Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: k.m. v. pandalai, for the petitioner p.k.r. menon, for the respondent head note: income tax revision under s. 264--condonation of delayapplication for condonation of delay rejected by creptic order catch note: assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing revision petition under section 264 was rejected by the commissioner by a non-speaking order without applying mind and as such revision petition was consequently dismissed--not justified the commissioner ought to have passed a reasoned order showing circumstances and ground for rejecting the condonation application--the commissioner, therefore, directed to consider the application for condonation of delay and revision petition also afresh. held: the commissioner who was bound to consider revision petition and application for condonation of delay and applied his mind before rejecting the same his order is not a speaking order. a reading of revision petition and application for condonation of delay and order will not show the grounds made out for condonation of delay and the circumstances under which the commissioner came to the conclusion that the grounds made out are not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the revision. the commissioner ought to have passed a reasoned order instead of the cryptic order. hence, the impugned order is set aside and the commissioneris directed to consider revision petition and the application for condonation of delay respectively, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. application: also to current assessment year. decision: in favour of assessee income tax act 1961 s.264 in the kerala high cour p.v. narayanan nambiar, j. income tax act, 1961, s. 264(3) - p. v. nara yanan nambiar, j.:advocate sri ravindranatha menon appears for respondents.2. petitioner filed ext. p1 revision petition along with an application for condonation of delay in filing ext. pl, copy of which is marked as ext. p2, before the 2nd respondent, exts. p1 and p2 were considered together by the second respondent who passed ext. p5 order which reads as follows :'the revision petition is filed out of time, i find no ground to condone the delay. the revision petition is rejected.'3. the second respondent who was bound to consider exts. p1 and p2 should have applied his mind before rejecting the. application for condonation of delay and consequentially, the revision petition. ext. p5 is not a speaking order. a reading of ext. p5 order will not show the grounds made out for condonation of delay and the circumstances under which the second respondent came to the conclusion that the grounds made out are not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the revision. the second respondent ought to have passed a reasoned order instead of the cryptic order as is seen from ext. p5.4. hence, ext. p5 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider exts. p1 and p2-revision petition and the application for condonation of delay respectively, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,the original petition is disposed of as above.