Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (11) TMI 1069

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. 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 merits and more particularly considering the case of the petitioner, which although was noticed in the impugned order, was not taken to its logical conclusion, merely on a erroneous presumption in law that the revision is not maintainable for a reason that the petitioner had failed to produce certain materials in response to notice dated 15 April, 2021. In our opinion, there is a m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2021 issued to the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner is before the Court assailing the impugned order passed by the PCIT rejecting the petitioner s Revision Application. 3. The Assessment Year in question is 2018-19, for which the petitioner filed its return of income on 31 July, 2018. The petitioner, however, realized that the return of income was filed in the wrong form (ITR-4) on an incorrect advice. The petitioner therefore filed the corrected return of income under ITR-3 wherein he claimed deductions and exemptions from capital gains under Section 54F in the context of the petitioner s acquisition of Flat No. 1001, which was a consequence of surrender of tenancy, and having acquired a flat in the redevelopment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e PCIT being not maintainable as noted by us hereinabove. 6. Mr. Nandiwadekar, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily has twofold submissions to assail the impugned order. Firstly, he contends that the impugned order passed by PCIT is completely oblivious of the powers and jurisdiction vested in the PCIT under section 264 of the I.T. Act, which according to him, are well-settled to be very wide referring to the decision of this Court in Smita Rohit Gupta vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (2024) 158 taxmann.com 157 (Bombay) and Bahar Infocons (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (2024) 167 taxmann.com 179 (Bombay) . Second contention of Mr. Naniwadekar is that once in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the PCIT has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vision Bench in Hindustan Diamond Company (P.) Ltd. also observed that the proceedings under Section 264 are intended to meet the situation faced by an aggrieved assessee who is unable to approach the appellate authority for relief and has no other alternate remedy available under the Act. 9. In Smita Rohit Gupta (supra), the Division Bench also referred to decision of Vijay Gupta vs. CIT (2016) 68 taxmann.com 131 wherein the Delhi High Court observed it to be a clear position from various judicial pronouncements, that the powers conferred under Section 264 of the Act are very wide. It was also observed that since Section 264 uses the expression any order , which would imply that the section does not limit the power to correct mere errors c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... articularly considering the case of the petitioner, which although was noticed in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, was not taken to its logical conclusion, merely on a erroneous presumption in law that the revision is not maintainable for a reason that the petitioner had failed to produce certain materials in response to notice dated 15 April, 2021. In our opinion, there is a manifest error on the part of PCIT in coming to such conclusion to hold the revision not maintainable in the facts of the present case. 12. In light of the above discussion, Writ Petition needs to succeed. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 24 March, 2023 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner s Revision application are remanded to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates