9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income-tax Act (for short "I.T. Act") against an ex-parte assessment order dated 2 June, 2021 passed by respondent no. 3-NFAC under Section 143(3) read with the provision of Section 144B of the I.T. Act, has been dismissed on the ground that the Revision Application was not maintainable. 2. The petitioner's contention is that although a reasoned order is passed by PCIT accepting the petitioner's case as seen from paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the same has been erroneously and contrary to the wellsettled position in law, has been held to be not maintainable. The PCIT inter alia held that the refund was also not maintainable for a reason that the petitioner had failed to produce certain materials in response to the notice dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petitioner requiring documentation substantiating the capital gains of Rs.52.12 lakhs, however, the petitioner-Chartered Accountant did not comply with the notice dated 15 April, 2021 and consequently the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass ex-parte assessment order dated 2 June, 2021. We need not delve on the details of the assessment order, suffice it to observe that the petitioner being aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment order had approached PCIT in Revision filed under section 264 of the I.T. Act praying for deletion of additions which were made of Rs.25,29,600/- and Rs.52,12,446/-. The petitioner submitted all materials in that regard, before the Revisionary Authority. However, by the impugned order, the Revision came to be rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order and the record, we may observe that certainly considering the well-settled principles in law, the PCIT should not have rejected the petitioner's revision application as not maintainable. Mr. Naniwadekar would also be correct in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Smita Rohit Gupta (supra) wherein referring to the decision of this Court in Hindustan Diamond Company (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 175 Taxation 91, the Division Bench of this Court has held that exercise of power under section 264 was not subject to the power of the Assessing Officer to make adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. It was held that the power of the Commissioner under section 264 is rather wide and even the error committed could be recti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was observed that by remedying such mistake by orders being passed under Section 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 Court also observed that the object of such provision appears to be that the law would not be oblivious to any bona fide human mistake which may occur at the end of the assessee and which if otherwise permitted to remain, may lead to injustice or the provisions of law being breached. 11. In this view of the matter, considering the aforesaid position in law, we are of the clear opinion that the cause in the present case warranted that the revision be decided on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
