TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – CIT v/s.Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Revision Petition is revived and placed back before the Commissioner for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law, bearing in mind, the observations made in this Judgment. This may be done preferably before 28th February, 2019. - WRIT PETITION NO.1984 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2018 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Nitesh Joshi with Mr. Shantibhushan Nirmal i/b. Profess Law Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sham Walve, for the Respondents. P.C: Petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner also filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act and requested that the Petitioner be granted the benefit of the expenditure since it is duly established on facts and in law. Commissioner dismissed the said Revision Petition by the impugned order, only on the ground that, the Petitioner not having claimed it in the return and not having filed revised return, cannot raise claim in Revision Petition. It is against this order of the Commissioner that this Petition is filed. 6. The issue before us, is very narrow. The question is, can the Commissioner, in case, as noted above, entertain Petitioner's claim and grant a relief in exercise of revison power under Section 264 of the Act. The issue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... putation of income before the Assessing Officer before whom the assessment of the firm was still pending. To the extent, when the Commissioner holds that such expenditure would not be allowed in the hands of the firm also, we are unable to accept the stand. We have note the three objections of the Commissioner in granting such expenditure. We may deal with these objections seriatim. 8: The nonfiling of the revised return by the firm could not have been the ground for rejection of the claim. Even if the powers of the Assessing Officer could be seen to be restricted in absence of any revised return, nothing prevented the Commissioner from examining the issue and if need be to have further enquiries made. In case of C. Parikh Co. v/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the judgment of this Court in case of C. Parikh Co. (supra) observed that the powers of the Commissioner under Section 264 are wider than under section 263 and not confined to correcting the erroneous orders. It was held that deduction not claimed during assessment proceedings or appeals can be considered by CIT on an application under section 264 of the Act. 10: In case of Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. V/s. C. B. Rathi, CIT [1994] 210 ITR 797/75 Taxman 355 (Guj.) the assessee had not claimed a weighted deduction on certain expenditure before the Assessing Officer carrying a belief that no such deduction could be claimed. In the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner also, no such claim was made and therefore such claim was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of assessment on the ground that the order was erroneous inasmuch as, under the law, deduction under Section 35B ought to have been granted to the assessee. The power of revision under Section 264 cannot be restricted to such erroneous orders which have become erroneous as a result of some error committed by the Income Tax Office while passing the orders. Independently of any decision or absence of any decision on the part of the Income Tax Officer, the order of assessment can be challenged but also by the Incometax Officer. Even in such a case, the order of assessment can be challenged by filing a revision application before the Commissioner. Therefore, even this contention raised on behalf of the Revenue deserves to be rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
