Ramesh Madhukar Deole Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court set aside an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting a revision application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as not maintainable. The assessee had originally filed the return for AY 2018–19 in the wrong form and later submitted a corrected return claiming exemption on capital gains under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 arising from surrender of tenancy rights and investment in a new residential flat. Due to non-submission of documents in response to a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the Commissioner’s revisionary powers under Section 264 are wide and intended to remedy genuine mistakes and injustices. Since the authority itself considered the merits but rejected the revision as not maintainable, the Court found a manifest legal error, quashed the order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within three months.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 24 March, 2023 passed by respondent no. 1-Principal Commissioner of Income tax (PCIT) whereby the petitioner’s Revision Application filed under the provisions of Section 264 of the Income-tax Act (for short “I.T. Act”) against an ex-parte assessment order dated 2 June, 2021 passed by respondent no. 3-NFAC under Section 143(3) read with the provision of Section 144B of the I.T. Act, has been dismissed on the ground that the Revision Application was not maintainable.
