TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the opinion that there is no bar in the grant of the relief despite the assessee apparently having missed the bus and having committed the mistake. The interpretation of this Court is clarified by the ruling of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Snehlata (2004 (4) TMI 579 - JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT ) where too the question was whether in the absence of the assessee’s claiming relief under Section 54F either in the original return or even in the revised return, it could be granted in revision. The Court unequivocally held that it could be granted. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the petition has to succeed. The matter is remitted to the AO for consideration who shall take into account the petitioner’s cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal which was withdrawn, the assessee filed the revision petition under Section 264 of the Act. The Commissioner rejected the assessee s revision petition observing as follows: - As regards the contention of the assessee with regard to share trading loss, the order of AO is quite speaking and no interference is required by this office. Further, after going through the record, it is found that no documentary evidences whatsoever were filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings with regard to cost of improvement made by him in AY 1997-98 in Ramesh Park Property. The assessee has also failed to bring on record reasons that prevented him from filing the copies of so called valuation report before the AO. Thus, the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee to claim the Section 54F benefit at the time the original return was filed. It was also argued that the reasoning of the CIT (A) that the judgment in Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006), 284 ITR 323 (SC) applied is erroneous. Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the revisional power is narrower than the appellate power as is evident from the phraseology of Section 264. Learned counsel contested the assessee s contention that it had no occasion to make a claim under Section 54F and submitted that when the return was filed, this eventuality was within its contemplation and could well have been sought. It was submitted that even the remand report sought by the Commissioner in the present case is clear that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Snehlata (supra) where too the question was whether in the absence of the assessee s claiming relief under Section 54F either in the original return or even in the revised return, it could be granted in revision. The Court unequivocally held that it could be granted. The Court also cited other rulings of the Gujarat High Court and Allahabad High Court. The ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Pandit Shiv Nath Sharma v. CIT TC 57R 712 and OCM Lts. (London) v. ITO TC 57R 637 generally state that the assessee s mistake can also be corrected or rectified in revisional proceedings. As far as Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) goes, the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with a slightly different set of circumstances where the assessee sought to cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
