KLJ ORGANIC LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) – 2

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 264(3) Income Tax Act; Section 14 Limitation Act

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has recently decided a case where the Hon’ble Court was pleased to apply section 14 of the Limitation Act in the Income Tax Proceedings to exclude the time the assessee had spent in pursuing its remedies before a forum without jurisdiction for the calculation of limitation period. The relevant part of the judgements is reproduced herewith for your convenience. “In the opinion of this Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted to the facts of the present case and the Petitioner is entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction.” [W.P.C
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

MANMOHAN, J (Oral): C.M.No.8883/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27 W.P.(C) 3071/2022 th March, 2021 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -2 [‘ CIT(IT)’] , New Delhi f or the Assessment Year 2018 -19. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondent to consider the Revision Petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 264 Income Tax Act,

1961 (‘the Act’) on merits after condoning the delay in preferring the petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide impugned order the Revision petition filed by the Petitioner u nder Section 264 of the Act was arbitrarily dismissed on the ground of limitation. He states that the Petitioner under the bona fi de mistake of law and relying on previous orders passed by ITO and CIT(A) in favour of the Petitioner on the same issue, filed an appeal under Section 248 of the Act on 10 th 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner came to know that the said appeal is not maintainable as the Petitioner ha d not paid the tax determined in the order passed under Section 195(2) of the Act.

He states that the Petitioner , immediately thereafter, without wasting any time, withdrew the appeal vide letter dated 07 April, 2018 under the belief that the said order is appealable . He states that th e Petitioner meticulously pursued the said appeal until June, 2019. th June, 2019 and filed a Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Act within four days i.e 11 th June, 2019 against the order dated 16th 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned order is erroneous in terms of proviso (3) to Section 264 of the Act , since the CIT dismissed the Revision Petition as time-barred despite there being sufficient cause for the delay.

March, 2018 passed by the ITO. 5. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. He refers to the impugned order to contend that the reasoning given by the Petitioner for seeking condonation of delay is untenable in law.

6. In the opinion of this Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted to the facts of the present case and the Petitioner is entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. 7. This Court is of the view that if the time spent by the Petitioner in prosecuting the appeal under Section 248 of the Act is excluded, then the Revision Petition filed under Section 264 would be within time. 8. Consequently, the present w rit petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the CIT(IT) to decide the Revision Petition on merit in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merit of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the partie s are left open. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with KLJ ORGANIC LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) – 2 concerns the hon’ble delhi high court has recently decided a case where the hon’ble court was pleased to apply section 14 of the limitation act in the income tax proceedings to exclude the time the assessee had spent in pursuing its remedies before a forum without jurisdiction for the calculation of limitation period. the relevant part of the judgements is reproduced herewith for your convenience. “in the opinion of this court, section 14 of the limitation act, 1963 is attracted to the facts of the present case and the petitioner is entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction.” [w.p.c The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) 3071/2022.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has recently decided a case where the Hon’ble Court was pleased to apply section 14 of the Limitation Act in the Income Tax Proceedings to exclude the time the assessee had spent in pursuing its remedies before a forum without jurisdiction for the calculation of limitation period. The relevant part of the judgements is reproduced herewith for your convenience. “In the opinion of this Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted to the facts of the present case and the Petitioner is entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction.” [W.P.C Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—264(3) Income Tax Act; Section 14 Limitation Act—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of 264(3) Income Tax Act; Section 14 Limitation Act and the decision date 2022-02-18; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is KLJ ORGANIC LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) – 2, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 3071/2022, and the decision is dated 2022-02-18. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVING CHAWLA. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with 264(3) Income Tax Act; Section 14 Limitation Act. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• 264(3) Income Tax Act — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• Section 14 Limitation Act — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• P.R. Packaging Service v. ACIT — ITAT Mumbai · Allowed
• Mondelez India Foods Private Limited vs Addl. CIT — ITAT Mumbai · Allowed
• Rohit Goel v. DCIT — ITAT Delhi · Allowed
• Climax Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT — ITAT Delhi · Allowed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Appeals, Revision, Rectification & Procedure

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY