TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). 3. The facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. In the instant case, the Petitioner filed his Income Tax Returns for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022-2023 on 19th July 2022, declaring his income at Rs. 18.10 Crores. The Return of the Petitioner was processed, and an intimation order under Section 143(1) of the IT Act was passed on 19th October 2022. 4. The Petitioner had purchased an immovable property for Rs.23.06 Crores in December 2020, which was registered on 1st February 2021. According to the Petitioner, while filing the Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2022-2023, an inadvertent mistake crept in as he did not make a claim under Section 54F of the IT Act against Long-Term Capital Gains on the sale of shares. The Petitioner stated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [(2006) 284 ITR 323]. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned Advocate appearing for the Revenue. 7. We find that the issue raised in the above Writ Petition is squarely covered by several decisions of this Court in favour of the Petitioner. This Court has time and again held that revisional powers under Section 264 are not only wider in their scope but are also intended for preventing miscarriage of justice and providing relief to an Assessee, which it is otherwise entitled to. 8. This Court has also taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) and held that the said decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner. The proceedings under section 264 of the Act are intended to meet a situation faced by an aggrieved assessee, who is unable to approach the Appellate Authorities for relief and has no other alternate remedy available under the Act. The Commissioner is bound to apply his mind to the question whether petitioner was taxable on that income and his powers are not limited to correct the error committed by the subordinate authorities but could even be exercised where errors are committed by assessee. It would even cover situation where assessee because of an error has not put forth 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 sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ispose petitioner's application under section 264 of the Act on merits." 19. Considering the above, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 264 would cover within its ambit even a scenario where the assessee commits any error/mistake in the return of income. 20. Thirdly, as regards the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by Mr. Chatterjee, we find that this Court in the case of Bahar Infocons (P.) Ltd. (supra) has already dealt with the said argument of the revenue (in the context of Section 264 itself) and has held as under:- "17. Now coming to the decision as cited by Mr Mohanty, we are not persuaded to accept that the decision in Goetze (India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the above, we are of the considered opinion that the decision of the Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd.(supra) is wholly inapposite to the case at hand." 9. In view of the aforesaid settled position in law, we are clearly of the view that Respondent No. 1 ought to have considered the Revision Application of the Petitioner (filed under Section 264) even though mistakes/errors were committed by the Petitioner itself in the Return of the Income. Once we are of this view, the impugned order passed under Section 264 cannot be sustained and would have to be set aside. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we pass the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 7th March 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside; (ii) The R....