TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year 2008-09 by allowing deduction of Rs. 5,10,20,000/- towards provision for arrears of salary and wages payable to the officers and staff as per the Long Term Settlement. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner is a Government company and a sick industrial unit proceeding for re-habilitation under a Scheme approved by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). 3. Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IT Act'). In the return of income for the assessment year 2007-08, petitioner claimed a deduction of Rs. 5,10,20,000/- being provision made in the accounts towards arrears of salary and wages payable to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd respondent refused to interfere with the order of assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 and the petition under Section 264 is rejected. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, in accordance with law. It is submitted that Section 264 permits revision of any order of assessment on any of the grounds. This is an instance where petitioner was entitled to claim deduction during the assessment year 2007-08 which was rejected only on technical grounds since the permission from Principal Secretary was obtained only on 28/06/2007, that is during the assessment year 2007-08. If the said deduction is not allowable in the year 2007-08, petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....file a revision before the Commissioner under Section 264 of the IT Act and claim appropriate relief. It is held as under "In the light of the above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold that the Commissioner of Income Tax committed an error of law in holding that it is not open to him for the first time to entertain a relief of the kind pleaded by the assessee and in denying jurisdiction. We hold, that even though a mistake was committed by the assessee and it was detected by him after the order of assessment, and the order of assessment is not erroneous, none the less it is open to the assessee to file a revision before the Commissioner under S.264 of the Act and claim appropriate relief. But it should not be forgotten that the po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn is not filed, there is no claim at all for such a deduction and it is not for the Commissioner to adjudicate upon the same. That apart, at the relevant time, no materials were produced to show that the appeal for the assessment year 2007-08 was disposed of. 7. Section 264(1) to (4) of the IT Act reads as under: "264. Revision of other orders. (1) In the case of any order other than an order to which section 263 may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the IT Act which can have no basis for the power to be exercised by the Commissioner under Section 264 of the IT Act. Very wide powers have been conferred on the Commissioner under Section 264 of the IT Act to conduct an enquiry to be made and to pass such orders, as he thinks fit. In the impugned order, the Commissioner proceeds on the basis that the petitioner had not filed a revised return for the year 2008-09. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the time for filing a revised return had already expired and once the said period has expired, revised return cannot be filed. The question is whether, in the absence of filing a revised return, a claim for deduction for the aforesaid amount is permissible for the assessment year 2008-09. A....