9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tus of the petitioner for the purpose of the Act for the assessment year 1996-97 was "not ordinary resident of India". The petitioner, therefore, vide letter dated January 5, 2000, requested the Assessing Officer to exclude the income from his taxable income. The petitioner also preferred a revision application under section 264 of the Act to the respondent for exclusion of the aforesaid income of Rs. 5,35,547 from the assessed income of the petitioner as per the assessment order dated September 8, 1999. Pending the revision, the Assessing Officer framed assessment without referring to the letter filed by the petitioner requesting exclusion of income of Rs. 5,35,547. On October 13, 2000, the petitioner filed a second revision application with the respondent for revising the assessment order dated July 24, 2000, on the ground that the petitioner's request for exclusion of Rs. 5,35,547 was not entertained by the Assessing Officer. However, by the impugned order, the respondent rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition. 3. Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. 5. The decision of this court in the case of Ramdev Exports v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 873 (Guj), was cited for the proposition that it is open to the revisional authority to look into the deductions which might be claimed by the assessee for the first time. In other words, even if the return as submitted by the assessee is accepted by the Assessing Officer and if thereafter the assessee comes to know about some mistake committed, where either he was eligible for more deduction or had paid more tax, he can approach the revisional authority, and in such an event, it is open to the revisional authority to exercise its jurisdiction under section 264 of the Act. 6. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this court in the case of C.Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 610 (Guj), wherein the court has held that there is nothing in section 264 of the Act which places any restriction on the Commissioner's revisional powers to give relief to the assessee in a case where the assessee detects mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticularly, in paragraph 2.2 thereof, wherein the petitioner has asserted that the petitioner is a citizen of India, to submit that the petitioner is a British citizen and as such, the petitioner has made a false assertion on oath and, therefore, the petition is required to be rejected on this ground alone. It was submitted that the present petition has been filed under articles 226, 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Inviting attention to article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, it was submitted that the same would be applicable only to the citizens of India and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to file the present petition on the ground of breach of the fundamental rights under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 10. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel invited attention to the impugned order of the Commissioner and more particularly to paragraph 4 thereof, to point out that the Commissioner has recorded that on the merits also, the matter was got examined by the Assessing Officer, who had given the actual days of the petitioner's stay in India, which also negatives the claim of the petitioner. It was submitted that as such, it is not as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India. However, the petitioner has also invoked article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is wide enough to cover the grievance voiced in the present petition. In the circumstances, the contention that the present petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, does not merit acceptance. 14. The facts noted hereinabove show that it is an undisputed position that the income in the nature of interest earned on the FCNR deposits held by a person "not ordinarily resident in India" are exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(fa) of the Act. In the present case, when the petitioner filed return for the assessment year 1996-97 he had included the interest on FCNR deposits of Rs. 5,35,547 as assessable income. The assessment was, accordingly, framed by the Assessing Officer, including the said interest income as the income of the petitioner. When the petitioner noticed his aforesaid mistake, the petitioner made a revision application under section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, as is apparent from a plain reading of the impugned order, has turned down the application mainly on the ground that it cannot be the petitioner's case that he wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t justified in dismissing the said application merely on the ground that it was the petitioner who had shown the said income to be his income for the year under consideration. 16. This court in the case of Ramdev Exports v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 873 (Guj) has held that it is open to the revisional authority to look into the deductions which might be claimed by the assessee for the first time. It is further held that even if the return as submitted by the assessee is accepted by the Assessing Officer and if thereafter the assessee comes to know about some mistake committed, where either he was eligible for more deduction or had paid more tax, he can approach the revisional authority, and in such an event, it is open to the revisional authority to exercise its jurisdiction under section 264 of the Act. Similarly, in the case of C. Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 610 (Guj), this court has held that there is no restriction on the Commissioner's revisional powers to give relief to the assessee in a case where the assessee detects mistakes on account of which he was over-assessed, after the assessment was completed. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
