TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner's Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Brief facts are as under: 3. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, Petitioner had filed return of income. The return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act, without scrutiny. The case of the Petitioner is that, Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,06,17942/towards employee's contribution of PF which was belated, nevertheless made before the due date of filing the return. According to the Petitioner, therefore, by virtue of law settled by this Court, such contribution would be allowable deduction. However, erroneously, Petitioner had not made such a claim in the return. Since return was not taken in scrutiny, Petitioner had no sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f them. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hitech Analystical Services v/s. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 251 Taxman 60/86 had occasion to deal with a very similar issue. The Court noticed the Judgments of various High Courts and the Supreme Court and observed as under: " 7:Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we see no error in the view of the Commissioner when he holds that the expenditure could not have been allowed in the hands of the partners. Even the Petitioners are unable to point out any manifest error in the view of the Assessing Officer and he Commissioner since in the hands of the partners, the expenditure would be related to earning exempt income.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the said case, after the assessment was completed, the assessee discovered that a mistake had been committed in its books of account in totaling the purchases as a result of which the assessee had undertotalled the purchases and on account of this, the gross profit of the assessee had gone-up. When the Commissioner refused to allow the assessee to correct such mistake, the issue reached the High Court. The Court observed that the powers are very wide. Subject to the limitation prescribed in the section itself, the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers could pass such order as he thinks fit which is not prejudicial to the assessee. It was further observed that there is nothing in section 264 placing any restriction on the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act claiming deduction which revision petition was rejected by the Commissioner. The High Court held that the Commissioner ought to have entertained the claim and decided it on merits. The High Court referring to and relying upon the decision of this Court in case of C. Parikh & Co. (supra) held thus: "In the alternative, it was submitted that the assessee not having made any claim before the Income Tax Officer, there was no order of the Income Tax Officer in this behalf and, therefore, section 364 could not have been invoked by the assessee. What was submitted was that a revision application would lie only against the order of the Income Tax Officer and if there was no order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon a Commissioner under Section 264 are very wide. The Commissioner is bound to apply his mind to the question whether the assessee was taxable on a particular income. Section 264 uses the expression 'any order'. It would imply that the section does not limit the power to correct errors committed by the subordinate authorities but could even be exercised where errors are committed by the assessee. There is nothing in section 264 which places any restriction on the Commissioner's revisional power to give relief to the assessee in a case where the assessee detects mistakes after the assessment is completed because of which he is over assessed. First objection of the Commissioner was therefore not valid." 9 Similar view ha....