TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139 (5) of the Act was filed beyond the specified date, petitioner was debarred from filing revised return through which the mistake of unclaimed deduction could have been claimed and further held that the scope of revision by the Commissioner is not an alternative path to the revised return by relying on a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited Vs- CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). Mr. Sen, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner challenged the aforesaid impugned orders of revision passed by the Commissioner, under Section 264 of the Act by contending that nowhere on merit Commissioner has held that the income in question claiming for deduction by the petitioner was not an exempted income or the same is a taxable income under the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that without going into the merit of claim by considering the records of the case including relevant income tax returns on the basis of which orders under Section 143 (1) of the Act were passed, CIT erroneously tried to draw similarity between the revised return and revision and dismissed the revision applications in question. Mr. Sen submits that power conferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er produced unimpeachable documents showing investment which is otherwise liable to be taken note of for granting exemption and if it were allowed by the Commissioner then the petitioner would not have suffered for over-assessment. The expression or prejudicial means the prejudicial effect of an order passed by the revising officer on the merits. He also relies on a judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sharp Tools v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2020] 421 ITR 90 (Mad) particularly paragraphs 22 to 26 which are relevant and are quoted as hereunder : 22. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue by that exercise of power and granting the relief to the assessee under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is subject to the provision of the Income-tax Act and therefore, the assessee herein, having not filed revised return within the time stipulated under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, is not entitled to the relief even under section 264 of the Income-tax Act. 23. I am unable to appreciate the above contention, as it appears that the Revenue by making such contention, is sought to justify the col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the order of the respondent impugned in this writ petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the respondent for considering the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations and findings rendered supra. The respondent shall, accordingly, pass such fresh order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. He also relies on a judgment of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kewal Krishnan Jain v. Commissioner of Income-tax, jalandhar reported in [2014] 42 taxman.com 84 (Punjab Haryana) particularly paragraphs 7 and 8 which are relevant and are quoted as hereunder : 7. In the light of above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax committed an error of law in holding that it is not open to him for the first time to entertain a relief of the kind pleaded by the assessee and in denying jurisdiction. We hold, that even though a mistake was committed by the assessee and it was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. In my considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner in refusal to consider the aforesaid claim of the petitioner has misinterpreted and misconstrued the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Supra 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. In view of the reasoning and discussions made above, , I am of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 24th March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
