Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order clearly states the legal position and the petitioner filed the revised return on 24.3.2005, which is beyond the limitation period, in the light of sub section (4) to Section 139 of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that when there was no valid revised return on the file of the Assessing Officer, the question of considering such return, which is non-est in law, does not arise and the respondent was justified in rejecting the prayer sought for by the petitioner. It is submitted that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the petitioner can very well approach the Board and the Board is empowered under Section 119(2) of the Act to admit any application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief, after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application of claim and deal with the same on merits and in accordance with law, which includes Section 139. On the above grounds, the learned standing counsel seeks to sustain the impugned order.

9.That being the powers and duties of the Commissioner, when the revision petition was not filed within the limitation period and separate petition was filed, for condonation of delay, showing sufficient cause which prevented the petitioner from approaching the Commissioner within the time stipulated period, the Commissioner entertained the condone delay petition and was satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner and condoned the delay, in exercise of power under sub section (3) to Section 264. In normal circumstances, the Commissioner, after condoning the delay in filing the revision petition, should take up the revision petition on merits and consider the claim of the assessee, in terms of Section 264. Whereas, in the present case, the Commissioner did not examine, as to whether the claim of the petitioner that it has been taxed twice for the amount of Rs.11,41,607/-, was bonafide, but the Commissioner proceeded with the aspect, as to whether the revised return for the assessment year 2002-03 filed by the petitioner on 24.3.2005 was valid. While considering this issue, the Commissioner relied on Section 139(5) of the Act and observed that the revised return was filed beyond the time limit and therefore, the Assessing Officer did not take any action on the revised return and the same was in confirmity with the law. In my considered view, going by the language of Section 264, the Commissioner should have gone into the factual aspect as to whether the assesssee was taxed twice for the said amount and the same should have been done, in the light of the wider powers conferred on the Commissioner, as discussed by this Court in the preceding paragraphs.