9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 702 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 264 - payments towards employee s contribution to the PF - Held that - We find that the Commissioner was not correct in refusing to exercise Petitioner s claim on merits. Since the Commissioner has not examined the merits of the Petitioner s case, we may place the Revision Petition back to the Commissioner for disposal on merits. We have noticed that all payments towards employee s contribution to the PF were made before the due date of the filing of the return. If that be so, surely, the Commissioner would be guided by the decision of this Court on the relevant issue namely CIT v/s.Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. 2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Revision Petition is revived and placed back before the Commissioner for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law, bearing in mind, the observations made in this Judgment. This may be done preferably before 28th February, 2019.
Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner had deposited a sum towards employee's PF contribution before the due date of filing the return but had not claimed it in the return. The Department raised a demand based on the filed return. The petitioner sought rectification and filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner, which was dismissed on the ground of not claiming the deduction in the return. The issue was whether the Commissioner could entertain the claim and grant relief under Section 264. The court referred to various judgments, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in Hitech Analystical Services v/s. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, emphasizing the wide powers of the Commissioner under Section 264. The court highlighted the Gujarat High Court's decision in C. Parikh & Co. v/s. CIT, stating that the Commissioner's revisional powers are broad and not restricted to correcting erroneous orders. The court also cited the Kerala High Court's decision in Parekh Bros. V/s. CIT, emphasizing that deductions not claimed during assessment proceedings can be considered under Section 264. Additionally, the court referenced the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. V/s. C. B. Rathi, where the Commissioner was expected to entertain a claim not raised before lower authorities. The court further mentioned the Delhi High Court's judgment in Vijay Gupta v/s. CIT, highlighting the wide powers conferred upon the Commissioner under Section 264. The court concluded that the Commissioner erred in refusing to consider the petitioner's claim on merits. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, guided by relevant legal precedents. The court directed the Commissioner to dispose of the Revision Petition before a specified date, emphasizing the importance of considering all payments made towards employee's PF contribution before the due date of filing the return.
|
