Delhi High Court Rejects Revenue’s Review Plea: Processing of Returns Must Proceed in Accordance with Law
In a significant development concerning the procedural rights of the Income Tax Department versus the finality of judicial orders, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of Review Petitions filed by the Revenue. The case, titled Bechtel Power Corporation Vs ACIT, centered on the Department's attempt to revisit a judgment dated 27.03.2025, which had directed the tax authorities to process the income tax returns of the assessee.
The High Court’s ruling reinforces the strict parameters governing the "Review Jurisdiction" of a court, emphasizing that a review petition cannot be utilized as a tool to re-argue a case or function as a disguised appeal.
Background of the Proceedings
The controversy originated from a common judgment delivered by the High Court on March 27, 2025. In that original verdict, the Court had allowed several writ petitions filed by Bechtel Power Corporation, instructing the Revenue to process the assessee's income tax returns strictly in adherence to the law.
Aggrieved by this direction, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) approached the High Court with multiple Review Petitions. The Revenue contended that the original judgment suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record and was inconsistent with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Condonation of Delay
Before addressing the merits of the review, the Court had to adjudicate on procedural lapses regarding the timeline of filing. The Revenue had filed applications seeking condonation of delay for both filing and re-filing the review petitions.
The delays were significant, ranging from:
- 54 days in re-filing the petitions.
- 181 days to 236 days in filing the substantive review petitions.
The Court, adopting a pragmatic approach, accepted the reasons provided in the separate applications and condoned the delays, thereby allowing the matter to be heard on its merits.
Core Arguments Raised by the Revenue
The counsel for the Revenue structured their challenge on two primary grounds, arguing that the judgment dated 27.03.2025 resulted in a miscarriage of justice.