TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r disposal by this common judgment and order. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the issues involved and with consent and request of learned advocates for the parties, both these Special Civil Applications were taken up for final consideration today, by treating Special Civil Application No.14025 of 2020 as lead matter. 3. Rule returnable in both the Special Civil Applications forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Revenue. 4. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.3.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad under Section 260 of the Income-Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITAT quashed the same. In later years, the Assessing Officer itself computed the claim of depreciation considering AY 2007-08 as the first year although the petitioner had not claimed any depreciation in AY 2007-08 to AY 2009-10. The ITAT vide order dated 17th October, 2018 (for AY 2009-10) finally concluded this controversy and the petitioner - company's claim was accepted by the ITAT for even AY 2009-10. In this regards, comparative working of depreciation on goodwill, as computed by respondent and Assessing Officer is provided as under: Assessment Year Depreciation claimed by petitioner Depreciation computed by AO 2007-08 - 4,24,86,335/ (Being 12.5% of value of goodwill on demerger i.e. Rs. 33,98,90,680/-) (Notiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are very wide. That the powers conferred under Section 264 of the Act would imply that section does not limit the power to correct errors committed by the subordinate authorities but could even be exercised where errors are committed by assessee. It would even cover situations where the assessee because of an error has not put forth a legitimate claim at the time of filing the return and the error is subsequently discovered and is raised for the first time in an application under section 264 of the Act. For the sake of brevity, the relevant observations of the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application 14230 of 2020 are quoted, thus; "8. It will be also useful to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 12 of EBR Enterprises v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk." 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have explained each and every day's delay. On the contrary, the Apex Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. The Apex Court also held there is no presumption that delay is intentional and deliberate, as normally a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. As stated earli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion of change of opinion would arise when an order under section 143 (1) (a) of the Act had been passed. 8. The provisions of Section 264 and the power available to the Commissioner to exercise under section 264 of the Act came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Diamond Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2003) 175 Taxation 91 (Bom)]. The Division Bench was pleased to observe that exercise of power under section 264 was not subject to the power of the Assessing Officer to make adjustment under section 143 (1) of the Act. The Court held that power of the Commissioner under section 264 is rather wide and even the errors committed could be rectified. Paragraph 6 of the Hindustan Diamond Company Pvt. Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 265 of the Act to grant relief to the assessee if available to the assessee as per the decision of the Apex Court. Exercise of powers under section 264 is not subject to the power of the Assessing Officer to make adjustments under section 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, relief can be granted to the assessee under section 264 even if the power of adjustment under section 143 (1) is taken away from the Assessing Officer." (emphasis supplied) 9. Section 264 of the Act also came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vijay Gupta v CIT Delhi-III [2016] 68 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi) where paragraph 35 reads as under: "35. From the various judicial pronouncements, it is settled th....