Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 873 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 264 - 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 - original return u/s 139 (5) was filed beyond the specified date - petitioner is an old lady of advancing age and being unaware of the technicalities of the income tax law, committed mistake in her return by including the exempted income in question relating to dividend and long term capital gain as income payable to tax and such mistake was realised by her only upon receipt of the orders passed under Section 143 (1) - Assessee case that since the filing of original return itself was delayed no revised return could be filed by her under Section 139 (5) 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 u/s 264 before the Commissioner of Income Tax concerned - HELD THAT:- 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 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. Commissioner in refusal to consider the aforesaid claim of the petitioner has misinterpreted and misconstrued the judgment of Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] as well as the scope of jurisdiction conferred upon him under section 264 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 by equating the same with that of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in considering the claim of any allowance / deduction by an assessee in return or without filing any revised return. The impugned orders u/s 264 are not sustainable in law and accordingly the same set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Commissioner of Income Tax concerned to reconsider and dispose of the applications in question under Section 264.
|