2018 (7) TMI 1322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e-tax-respondent no.2. By the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2018 the petitioner's Revision Application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13 was rejected as being time-barred and dismissed on merits also. 3. Briefly, the facts relevant are as under : (a). The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of sugar. It purchases sugarcane from farmers through various Societies established by the State Government under the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Rules, 1954 (for short "the Sugarcane Act"). The petitioner is required to pay commission to the above Societies from whom sugarcane is procured. (b) For the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13, the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessment Year 2013-14. (d). Consequent to the above, the petitioner filed an Appeal on 22nd April, 2016 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) CIT(A), challenging the order dated 25th March, 2016 in respect of Assessment Year 2013-14. At the same time, i.e. on 22nd April, 2016 the petitioner also filed a Revision Application under Section 264 of the Act before respondent no.2-Principal Commissioner of Income-tax alongwith an application for condonation of delay. (e). The reason for the delay, in filing the Revision Application as explained by the petitioner, in its application for condonation of delay, was that the deduction on account of payments made to the societies as claimed for the Assessment Year 2013-14 stood rejected by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erits of its Revision Application, once it is held that the condonation of delay application is allowed. Infact, this Court in EBR Enterprises Vs. Union of India, [2018] 89 taxmann.com 194 (Bombay), has on identical fact situation has held that the Commissioner misdirected himself in dealing with the merits of the Revision Application, when the condonation of delay application was rejected. 5. So far as the delay in filing the Revision Application under Section 264 of the Act is concerned, it is the petitioner's case that as payments of commission to Societies under the Sugarcane Act was made in previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14. This was consequent to the order dated 19th June, 2012 of the State Government. Therefore, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a futile exercise as the Revision Application itself is not maintainable. It is pointed out that the claim of deduction of Rs. 4.25 crores being the payment made to the Societies was not a claim made either in the original or revised return of income before the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2012- 13. Thus, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 2006 (284) ITR 323, it is submitted that such a claim could not be made before the Commissioner of Income-tax in Revision under Section 264 of the Act. It was pointed out to him that the decision of the Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was considered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-VIII, [2017] (78) taxmann.com 265 and the decision of the Kerala High Court in Transformers & Electricals Kerala Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(2), Kochi, [2016] 75 taxmann.com 298 wherein a view has been taken that the powers of revision under Section 264 of the Act are very wide and is not restricted to only consideration of claims made before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is submitted that it would be appropriate that, respondent no.2-Principal CIT passes a fresh order after hearing the parties and considering the above decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the parties. 10. In view of the rival contentions, we do not accept the contentio....