Pramod R. Agrawal vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 ... on 13 October, 2023
8 Mr. Gandhi submitted that the impugned order requires to be quashed
and set aside and the matter be remanded to respondent no.1 because
respondent no.1 has not really appreciated the scope of Section 264 of the
Act. Mr. Gandhi submitted that Section 264 of the Act confers wide
Meera Jadhav
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2024 10:57:13 :::
5/12 904-wp-2435-17.doc
jurisdiction on the commissioner and proceedings under Section 264 are
intended to meet the situation faced by an aggrieved assessee who is unable
to approach the appellate authority for relief and has no other alternate
remedy available under the Act. Mr. Gandhi submitted that even though
there might be an embargo on the assessing officer, there is no such
embargo on the power of the appellate authority or as in the case of
revisional authority. Mr. Gandhi submitted that the power under Section
264 of the Act is intended to prevent miscarriage of justice and courts have
consistently taken a view that conferment of the powers under Section 264
of the Act is to enable the Commissioner to provide relief to assessee, where
the law permits the same. This power would even cover the situation, where
assessee because of error has not put forth a legitimate claim at the time of
filing the return and the error is subsequently discovered and is raised for
the first time in an application filed under Section 264 of the Act. In the case
at hand, error was discovered and raised before respondent no.3 in the
application filed under Section 154 of the Act. Mr. Gandhi relied upon the
following judgments; Hindustan Diamond Company Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT1, Smita
Rohit Gupta Vs. CIT,2 Asmita A. Damale Vs. CIT3, Selvamuthukumar Vs CIT
& Anr.4, Shah Brothers Vs. CIT,5 and Vijay Gupta Vs. CIT.6
9 Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted that the assessing officer-respondent