9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision petition filed by the Petitioner before the CIT and directs the AO now to give effect to this order by computing the tax liability of the Petitioner for the AY 1998-99 after allowing the claim for provision made for wages arrears as per the 5th Pay Commission which became effective on 1st January 1996. - W. P. (C) 5331/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Chander Shekhar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.P. Garg with Mr. K.N. Ahuja, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior standing counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior standing counsel JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The Petitioner, Rites Limited, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 24th March 2014 passed by the Respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax ( CIT ), rejecting its application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). 2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner, Rites Limited, is a Government of India Undertaking engaged in the business of providing technical consultancy services in India and abroad. It is stated that pursuant to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise to a mistake apparent on the record. 8. The further appeal filed by the Petitioner before this Court being ITA No. 370 of 2012 was disposed of by the Division Bench on 4th September 2012 as under: It is evident from the above discussion that the Assessee pursued the wrong remedy and also omitted to make a claim, by sheer inadvertence, or make any mention of the notification which was a material and relevant fact, in the return filed on 227th August 1998. These wrong remedies have taken almost a decade and led the Assessee to approach this Court. The Court is satisfied that the question of law sought to be urged i.e. jurisdiction of the income tax authorities under Section 154 does not arise in the circumstances of the case. However, the above observations are not conclusive of the matter. This Court is aware of the fact that the Assessee was bound to follow and implement the directions as a consequence of the notification dated 4th March 1998. Its misfortune was that this material was not revealed to the authorities at the appropriate stage. That was compounded by seeking wrong remedies i.e. through rectification, having regard to the law. In those circumstances th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Cal), and Ramdev Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 120 Taxman 315 (Guj). In particular, a reference was made to the decision to decisions in C. Parikh Co. v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 610 (Guj) and Assam Roofing Limited v. CIT (2014) 43 Taxman.com 316 (Gauhati). 13. Mr. Garg submitted that there was nothing under Section 264 of the Act which placed any restriction on the CIT s revisional power to give relief to the Assessee in a case where the Assessee detected a genuine mistake after the assessment was completed. Reference was also made to the decision in Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v. CIT (2004) 192 CTR 50, Parekh Brothers v. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 105 (Ker) and CIT v. Sam Global Securities Limited (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Del). Mr. Garg sought to distinguish the decision of the Orissa High Court in Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd (supra). In support of the proposition that a beneficial provision is to be liberally construed, Mr. Garg placed reliance on the decisions in CIT v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Limited (1973) 89 ITR 240 (SC) and Bajaj Tempo Limited v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC). It was submitted that the matter concerning revised wages was part of the assessment recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercise revisional powers in favour of the Assessee. In exercise of this power, the Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the Assessee, call for the record of any proceeding under the Act and pass such order thereon not being an order prejudicial to the Assessee, as the thinks fit. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the Assessee. Power is also conferred on the Commissioner to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-section (4) provides that the Commissioner has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been subject to an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Subject to the above limitation, the revisional powers conferred on the Commissioner under s. 264 are very wide. He has the discretion to grant or refuse relief and the power to pass such order in revision as he may think fit. The discretion which the Commissioner has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act. 19. In Sneh Lata Jain v. CIT (supra), the High Court of Jammu Kashmir followed the above decisions and observed that in its revisionary jurisdiction the CIT has the power to call for the record of any proceedings under this Act and is also entitled to make any enquiry himself or cause any inquiry to be made and to pass such order as he thinks fit. 20. In the present case, therefore, the mere fact the Petitioner did not make any claim in the original return and also in its revised return before the passing of the assessment order by the AO would not stand in the way of the CIT exercising revisionary jurisdiction to grant relief. The Supreme Court in its decision in Goetze India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) held that while the AO could not permit a claim to be made after the filing of the return without the Assessee revising it prior to the assessment order, it did not impinge on the scope of the revisionary jurisdiction of the CIT. 21. The decision in Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, the order of the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
