Revisional remedy under Income-tax law cannot be denied for an expired revised return option; Section 248 is narrowly confined.

A revisional application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act cannot be rejected merely because the assessee could have filed a revised return, especially where that statutory option had already become time-barred when the error was discovered. Section 248 is limited to claims arising from tax deducted under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, where the payer asserts that no tax was deductible; it does not cover dividend distribution tax disputes. The commentary notes that these grounds were insufficient to sustain rejection of the revision petition, and the revisional authority was required to consider the matter on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the revision application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that a revised return could have been filed was sustainable. (ii) Whether Section 248 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was applicable to a claim concerning dividend distribution tax and, therefore, furnished a valid ground to reject the revision application.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the revision application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that a revised return could have been filed was sustainable.

Analysis: The rejection rested on the premise that the petitioner ought to have filed a revised return. The relevant statutory remedy under Section 264 could not be denied merely because an alternative course might have been available, particularly when the period for filing a revised return had already expired by the time the mistake was discovered. The existence of a statutory revisional remedy could not be displaced on this reasoning.

Conclusion: The first ground of rejection was unsustainable and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 248 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was applicable to a claim concerning dividend distribution tax and, therefore, furnished a valid ground to reject the revision application.

Analysis: Section 248 applies where tax deducted under Section 195 on payments to a non-resident is borne by the payer under an agreement or arrangement, and the payer claims that no tax was deductible. The dispute here concerned dividend distribution tax on dividend declared by the petitioner to its shareholder, and not a deduction under Section 195 from a payment to a non-resident. The statutory conditions for invoking Section 248 were therefore absent.

Conclusion: Section 248 was inapplicable and the second ground of rejection was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The rejection order could not be sustained on either ground, and the matter required reconsideration on merits by the revisional authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional application cannot be rejected on the basis that an alternative remedy such as a revised return was available when that statutory option had become time-barred, and Section 248 applies only to the specific class of cases involving tax deducted under Section 195 from payments to non-residents.

---