TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Hyderabad i.e., respondent No.3, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') and further seeks a direction to the said respondent to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 3. Petitioner before us is a joint venture and is also an assessee under the Act having the status of joint venture. The joint venture was formed between two companies - M/s.Tata Projects Ltd. and Aldesa Construcciones, S.A. for design and construction of civil structures and track works for double line railway tracks, bridges, structures etc. For the assessment year 2014-15, it filed its return of income on 24.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 15,18,42,010.00. By the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, 2nd respondent being the assessing officer assessed the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 15,18,42,010.00. 4. On 01.02.2018, petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.3 under Section 264 of the Act seeking revision of the assessment order. It was pointed out that assessee had commenced its business opera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icularly to paragraphs 5, 6, 9 and 10 thereon. 10. On the other hand, Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department has referred to the contentions advanced in the counter affidavit and has also adverted to Section 264 of the Act. His submission is that under Section 264 of the Act, 3rd respondent cannot go beyond the assessment order. Since petitioner did not raise the claim either in the original return of income or by filing a revised return of income, it is not open to the petitioner to raise this claim in a revision application. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) in support of the contention that an issue cannot be raised for the first time before the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act without raising the same before the assessing officer. 12. However, in his rejoinder, Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra 2) is clearly distinguishable. The said decision was rendered in the context of the appellate power of the Income Tax Appellate Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee (petitioner) by saying that it was a bona fide error not to claim such a deduction in the return of income or in the assessment proceeding. It is equally true that petitioner did not file a revised return of income claiming such deduction. 18. Before proceeding to Section 264 of the Act, we may mention that Section 80-IA of the Act is a beneficial provision providing certain benefits to an assessee which is engaged in infrastructure development etc. and needs to be interpreted accordingly. 19. As per Sub-Section (1) of Section 264 of the Act, in the case of any order other than an order to which Section 263 of the Act applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under the 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 the Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit. 20. Before analyzing the contours of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowed or a claim not put forth by the assessee. 24. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Geekay Security Services (P.) Ltd. (supra 1) was examining challenge to an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the assessee's application under Section 264 of the Act. In that case, petitioner failed to make a claim relating to deduction on account of deposit made towards employee's contribution to provident fund made belatedly, but before the due date of filing the return. 24.1. In the revision application, petitioner contended that it should be granted the benefit of the expenditure incurred but the same was rejected by the Principal Commissioner on the ground that petitioner had not claimed it in the return of income nor did it file any revised return of income. Observing that the issue before the Court was within a very narrow compass, Bombay High Court observed that the question was whether Commissioner could entertain petitioner's claim and grant the relief in exercise of the revisional power under Section 264 of the Act. 24.2. After referring to the Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Hitech Analytical Services v. Principal Com....