1989 (8) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dlery goods and exports the same. In the assessment year 1976-77, the petitioner disclosed an income of Rs. 2,06,450. It claimed Rs. 41,689.16 as export expenses under section 35B of the Income-tax Act. On October 3, 1977, the Income-tax Officer, Circle-II(2), Kanpur, made an assessment under section 143(3) on a total income of Rs. 2,16,060. The Income-tax Officer held that the share allocation will be as under Rs. Total income .. 2,16,060 Less Firm tax 41,639 -------------- 1,74,421 -------------- The order of the Income-tax Officer became final. In 1979, the petitioner moved an application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act claiming rebate of Rs. 5,75,153.68 under section 35B on the ground that under leg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot arbitrary, vague and fanciful. In the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax found that weighted deduction had been allowed to the petitioner according to its own agreement. On account of the agreement, the claim of the petitioner was not examined. The petitioner could not be heard complaining against the correctness of the order on the ground that the same was prejudicial to its interest. Neither before the Commissioner of Income-tax nor before us, the petitioner has made out a case that it was entitled to the weighted deduction of Rs. 5,75,154. The claim for deduction was vague, the same being based on the decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunals given by Bombay, Calcutta and Allahabad. The petitioner's counsel could no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... occasion to deal with the scope of section 264 of the Income-tax Act. It held (at page 119) "The limitations implicit in the exercise of such power are well known. The jurisdiction is discretionary. Whether in a particular case, on the basis of facts disclosed, the Commissioner will exercise his jurisdiction and interfere in the matter, is a matter of discretion. It is certainly a judicial discretion vested in the Commissioner, to be exercised in accordance with law. We are not called upon to pronounce on the scope and amplitude of the revisional power." Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show to us that the Commissioner of Income-tax committed an error apparent on face of the record in rejecting the application under s....