2008 (8) TMI 902

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave started production w.e.f. 1st March, 1995. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was entitled to deduction under s. 80-IB(3) to the extent of 30 per cent in respect of its profits and gains for a period of 10 consecutive assessment years beginning with the asst. yr. 1995-96. Since the petitioner did not have a positive gross total income in the initial years, it could not claim the said deduction. For the first time, the petitioner had a positive total gross income in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 2001-02. However, the petitioner did not claim any deduction in respect of the said assessment year. According to the petitioner, it did not do so because the fact that the petitioner was entitled to such a dedu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eeks to revise an order of his own motion, he cannot do so if the order sought to be revised had been made more than one year previously. Sec. 264(3) prescribes the limitation with respect to applications for revision made by the assessee. The said provision reads as under :"(3) In the case of an application for revision under this section by the assessee, the application must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him or the date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier : Provided that the CIT may, if he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, admit an application made after the expiry of that per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fide one and the reason given by the petitioner is not a device to cover any ulterior purpose. This can be discerned from the fact that while preparing the return for the asst. yr. 2004-05, the assessee learnt that it ought to have claimed deduction for the asst. yr. 2001-02 and subsequent years. Insofar as the subsequent years are concerned, i.e., asst. yrs. 2002-03 and 2003-04. the petitioner could have filed revised returns. The petitioner did so. However, in respect of the present assessment year, the period for filing a revised return had expired and, therefore, the only alternative left with the petitioner was to file a revision application under s. 264. It is also clear from the application made by the petitioner that this mistake wa....