TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2019-20 is argued as the lead matter, hence, we refer to the facts of the said case. 3. The petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment year 2019-20 declaring income of Rs. 1,89,71,207/-. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner was making a provision for bonus, ex-gratia and incentives (collectively referred as 'bonus') payable to employees, at the time of preparation of the financial statements. It is stated that the actual payment was dependent on various factors, and on an aggregate basis the amount could be lower or equal to the provisions made. The petitioner contends that in the previous year the petitioner Company had made provision of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- in the accounts for payment of bonus, and factually paid bonus of Rs. 1,18,62,953/- before the due date of filing return of income, for the assessment year 2018-19, and thus disallowed excess provision of Rs. 11,37,047/- in the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 under Section 43B of the Act. The computation of income is placed on record at Exhibit B. 4. It is contended that such excess provision of Rs. 11,37,047/- made in the assessment year 2018-19 had been written back by crediting to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2024 (Exhibit-A) passed by Respondent No. 1 and the order dated 4th December, 2019 (Exhibit-H) passed by the Respondent No. 2. (b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondent No. 1 and/or Respondent No. 2 to allow the reduction of excess provisions of Rs. 11,37,047/- from the returned income." 10. We have heard Dr. K. Shivaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the respondents/revenue. 11. Mr. Shivaram would submit that the time limit to file revised return of income under Section 139 (5) had expired after which the petitioner realized it's inadvertent mistake that while....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation made by the assessee, to call for the record of any proceeding under the Act and pass such order thereon not being an order prejudicial to the assessee. It is well settled that such power is conferred on the Commissioner to enable him to give relief to an assessee also in cases of over-assessment, however, such power is required to be exercised by the Commissioner subject to the limitations prescribed in the provision. This would include a situation that after an assessment is completed, if an assessee detects mistakes on account of which he was overassessed, the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked by the assessee. Such power is not confined merely to erroneous orders passed by the lower authorities. In such context Dr Shiravaman's reliance on the decision of the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Selvamuthukumar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. (supra) is apposite. The court in the context which are relevant to the present proceedings made the following observations:- "The power under section 264 of the Act extends to passing any order as the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may think fit after making an inquiry and subject to the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 26. 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, which according to the petitioner was included in her return as taxable income due to bonafide mistake and which she could not rectify by filing revised return since original return itself was belatedly filed and petitioner had no other remedy except taking recourse to filing of revision application under section 264 of The Income Tax Act, 1961." (emphasis supplied) 15. Considering the aforesaid position in law which we respectfully endorse, in our opinion, in the present case the Commissioner was not correct in rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in the return of income filed by him before the assessing authority, he was not entitled to raise such question for the first time in revision proceedings under Section 264 (1). Thus, not only the facts of the case are quite distinct but also even otherwise on the position in law the decision is not applicable to the case in hand. 18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, the Commissioner has certainly erred in law in rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner merely on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a revised return. The petition needs to succeed. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 19. The revision proceedings are accordingly restored to the file of Respondent No. 1 for appropriate orders to be passed under the provisions of Section 264 of the Act, in the light of the above observations on the merits of the adjustment as claimed by the petitioner. Writ Petition No. 2658 of 2024 and Writ Petition No. 3444 of 2024 20. These petitions also raise similar issues as noted hereinabove which are for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. In view of the reasons as contained in the our aforesaid judgment, thes....