TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are that the Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s River Banks Studios. He is also the Director of River Bank Studios Pvt. Ltd. ('RBSPL'). It is pointed out that for the relevant Assessment Year ('AY') 2012-13 both the Petitioner and RBSPL have been separately assessed. 3. On 1st April, 2011 an MOU was entered into between the Petitioner and RBSPL by virtue of which certain assets and liabilities of the proprietorship concern of the Assessee were taken over by RBSPL. On 29th August, 2012 RBSPL filed its return of income showing a loss of Rs. 1,13,181 without including the interest on certain Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) which came to be transferred to it as a result of the above MOU. On 29th September, 2012, the Petitioner filed a retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 6. By the impugned order dated 21st December 2016, the PCIT dismissed the revision petition only on the ground that it was time barred. The PCIT observed: "In this case return of income was filed on 29.09.2012 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) on 06.12.2013 by CPC Bangalore. It is seen from the CPC portal Bangalore that the refund arising on such processing was paid/encashed by the assessee on 25.04.2014. Thus, it becomes quite clear that assessee came to know about the processing of his return which resulted into refund." 7. At the hearing of this petition on 26th May 2017, the Court noted in para 2 of its order as under: "2. It seems that in the impugned order, the Commissioner of Income Tax ('CIT') has rejected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT for disposal on merits. 10. Mr Inder Paul Bansal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand submitted that a revision application could not have been filed by the Petitioner till such time the intimation under Section 143(1) was communicated to him. On 25th April, 2014 all that happened was that the refund amount got credited to his account. While at the highest it could be said that on that date the Petitioner may have known the fact of his return having been processed, he could not have known the contents of the intimation under Section 143(1). That intimation was admittedly communicated to the Petitioner only on 13th April, 2015. 11. There is merit in the contention of the Petitioner. When Section 264(3) uses th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in making an assessment, the Commissioner had power to correct it under s. 264(1). When the substantive law confers a benefit on the assessee under a statute, it cannot be taken away by the adjudicatory authority on mere technicalities." 13. Consequently, the Court is of the view that in the present case, the PCIT was in error in holding that the revision petition was time barred. 14. The Court would also like to observe that where in a given case, the PCIT is of the view that a certain petition is time barred, then in terms of the proviso to Section 264 (3), the PCIT should also examine whether there was any justifiable reason for such delay. He need not wait for an application to be filed by an Assessee for that purpose. He may put....