TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 873
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the orders passed under Section 143 (1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961, and it is her case that since the filing of original return itself was delayed no revised return could be filed by her under Section 139 (5) of the Act for claiming deduction of the income exempted from income tax which was included as taxable income due to bonafide mistake and having no other recourse like filing of revised return or appeal, she filed revision applications under Section 264 of the aforesaid Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax concerned. Respondent CIT concerned dismissed the revision applications of the petitioner in question by the aforesaid impugned orders by holding that since the orders passed under Section 143 (1) of the Act relating to relevant assessment years could not be called erroneous and that the petitioner did not file the revised return under Section 139 (5) of the Act for the claim in question he could not allow such claim in the revision application under section 264 of the Act and further by holding that since the original return under Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed beyond the specified date, petitioner was debarred from filing revised return through which the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntentions relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Phool Lata Somani v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 2006 150 TAXMAN 225 (CAL.) particularly paragraph 15 of which is relevant and is quoted hereunder : "15. According to me the Commissioner in this case on receipt of the application instead of relying solely on the reports or the records of the case should have made enquiry considering the documents placed before him by the petitioner. At least this should have been reflected in the impugned order that he had taken note on the date of making application of the revision, of the tax exempting investment. There might be varieties of reasons for not producing evidence at the time of the assessment; this does not mean that the assessee is precluded from producing evidence of contemporaneous nature at a later stage by filing an application for revision. The power under section 264 of the Commissioner in my opinion is to do the justice, to prevent miscarriage of justice being rendered. It appears from the records that the petitioner produced unimpeachable documents showing investment which is otherwise liable to be taken note of for granting exemption and if it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his power and grant the relief under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act. In other words, for granting the relief to an assessee, which the Commissioner finds that the Assessee is entitled to otherwise, no time restriction is provided under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, if such revisional jurisdiction is invoked by the assessee by making an application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act. However, the Commissioner is not entitled to revise any order under Section 264 on his own motion, if the order has been made more than an year previously. Thus, it is manifest that only suo-motu power of the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, is restricted against an order passed within one year, whereas no such restriction is imposed on the Commissioner to exercise his power in respect of an order, which has been passed more than on year, if such revisional power is sought to be invoked at the instance of the Assessee by making an application under Section 264 of the IT Act. 26. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the order of the respondent impugned in this writ petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court in Rashtriya Vikas Ltd. (supra), Gujarat High Court in C.Parikh & Co. (supra), Ramdev Exports (supra) and Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (supra). We, however, express our respectful disagreement with the judgment of the Jammu & Kahsmir High Court in M.Qasim Brothers (supra). Thus, we hold that a bonafide error committed by an assessee in claiming an admissible exemption, during assessment proceeding, would not prohibit the assessee from approaching the Commissioner or the Commissioner from considering a petition under Section 264 of the Act, provided other conditions contained in Section 264 are satisfied." Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record, submission of the petitioner and ratio laid down in the judgments cited, I am of the considered view that the respondent Commissioner of Income Tax concerned in the facts and circumstances of the case has committed error in law in dismissing the revision applications of the petitioner filed under section 264 of The Income Tax Act, 1961, by refusing to consider the claim of the petitioner on merit that the income in question was exempted from tax and not liable to tax under The Income Tax Act, 1961....