9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner subject to the limitations prescribed in the provision. This would include a situation that after an assessment is completed, if an assessee detects mistakes on account of which he was over-assessed, the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked by the assessee. Such power is not confined merely to erroneous orders passed by the lower authorities. In the present case the Commissioner was not correct in rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a revised return within the prescribed limitation. In our opinion, Section 264 is a salutary provision which also bridges the gap and / or removes vacuum to remedy a bona fide mistake and / or for correction of an inadvertent situation, which may take place in the assessment proceedings. By remedying such mistake by orders being passed u/s 264 of the Act, any illegality or injustice which would otherwise be caused to the assessee can be corrected so as to maintain a lawful course of action being followed in the course of assessment. The object of such provision also appears to be that the law would not be oblivious to any bona fide human mistake which may occur at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the provisions of Section 264 in the light of the above observations on the merits of the adjustment as claimed by the petitioner. - G. S. KULKARNI SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate i/b. Rahul Hakani. For the Respondents : Mr. N. C. Mohanty,. JUDGMENT (PER G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. These are three petitions filed by the petitioner/assessee, assailing the orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ), whereby the petitioners revision applications filed against the intimation under Section 143 (1) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 are rejected. As the issues of law and fact are common except for the amounts being different, the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 2664 of 2024 which is for the Assessment year 2019-20 is argued as the lead matter, hence, we refer to the facts of the said case. 3. The petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment year 2019-20 declaring income of Rs. 1,89,71,207/-. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20-2021 and 2021-2022. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner filed an application for revision under Section 264 against the intimation under Section 143 (1) dated 4 December 2019 on 7 November 2022 with a view to reduce the excess provision of Rs. 11,37,047/- from the returned income. The petitioner also filed an application dated 17 February 2023 for condonation of delay. In the said proceedings, the petitioner placed on record a chart showing summary of bonus provisions written back relevant to the Assessment Years along with an explanation in brief. 9. Respondent No. 1 considered the petitioner s case, however, by the impugned order dated 23 February 2024 by rejecting the petitioner s application under Section 264 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner should have filed a revised return of income. It is in these circumstances the present petition has been filed praying for the following substantial reliefs: (a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner's c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. (2022) 443 ITR 168 (Bom.), and Ena Chaudhuri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2023) 148 taxmann.com 100 (Calcutta). 12. On the other hand Mr. Mohanty in opposing the petitions would submit that respondent No. 1 has taken a correct view of the matter and more particularly referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) . He has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.S. Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2008) 298 ITR 373 (AP) in support of his contentions. 13. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that there is much substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners. Insofar as the revisional powers are concerned, Section 264 inter alia empowers the Commissioner, either on his own motion or on an application made by the assessee, to call for the record of any proceeding under the Act and pass such order thereon not being an order prejudicial to the assessee. It is well settled that such power is conferred on the Commissioner to enable him to give relief to an asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords, for granting the relief to an assessee, which the Commissioner finds that the Assessee is entitled to otherwise, no time restriction is provided under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, if such revisional jurisdiction is invoked by the assessee by making an application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act. However, the Commissioner is not entitled to revise any order under section 264 on his own motion, if the order has been made more than an year previously. Thus, it is manifest that only suo-motu power of the Commissioner under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, is restricted against an order passed within one year, whereas no such restriction is imposed on the Commissioner to exercise his power in respect of an order, which has been passed more than on year, if such revisional power is sought to be invoked at the instance of the Assessee by making an application under section 264 of the IT Act. 26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record, submission of the petitioner and ratio laid down in the judgments cited, I am of the considered view that the respondent Commissioner of Income Tax concerned in the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of 30 lakhs as damages much after the assessment in question. No material was placed to show that the audit report for the previous year had made any reference to the subsequent event of payment of damages. However in the subsequent assessment year the assessee did not claim any deduction of 30 lakhs. On such facts the assessee filed a revision requesting the Commissioner to direct the assessing officer to allow a deduction of 30 lakhs paid by the assessee as damages. The Commissioner rejected the request holding that the assessment for the relevant year made no reference to any claim for deduction of the said amount in the profit and loss account. In such circumstances, the Court in the facts of the case held that since the record under the provisions of section 264 (1) is only the record of the proceedings before the assessing authority and as assessee did not claim any such deduction in the return of income filed by him before the assessing authority, he was not entitled to raise such question for the first time in revision proceedings under Section 264 (1). Thus, not only the facts of the case are quite distinct but also even otherwise on the position in law the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
