Bahar Infocons Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 264; 43B; 139(5)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• See the source-driven case record below.

Material facts and background

facts of the present case would at all be applicable. Such decision is not in the context of the revisionary powers as conferred under the provisions of section 264 of the Income Tax Act, but in the context of deduction claimed by the assessee by a letter, after the return was filed, without filing of a revised return. Also the decision as rendered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.S. Raju (supra), would also not support the respondent’s case. In such case the the assessee had made payment of 30 lakhs as damages much after the assessment in question. No material was placed to show that the audit report for the previous year had made any reference to the subsequent event of payment of damages. However in the subsequent assessment year the assessee did not claim any deduction of 30 lakhs. On such facts the assessee filed a revision requesting the Commissioner to direct the assessing officer to allow a deduction of 30 lakhs paid by the assessee as damages. The Commissioner rejected the request holding that the assessment for the relevant year made no reference to any claim for deduction of the said amount in the profit and loss account. In such...

revision proceedings under Section 264(1). Thus, not only the facts of the case are quite distinct but also even otherwise on the position in law the decision is not applicable to the case in hand. 18.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, the

Commissioner has certainly erred in law in rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner merely on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a revised return. The petition needs to succeed. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 19.

The revision proceedings are accordingly restored to the file of

Respondent No.1 for appropriate orders to be passed under the provisions of Section 264 of the Act, in the light of the above observations on the merits of the adjustment as claimed by the petitioner. Writ Petition No.2658 of 2024 and Writ Petition No.3444 of 2024 20.

These petitions also raise similar issues as noted hereinabove

Appellant / assessee submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

2020 was processed by respondent No 2. An intimation under Section 143(1) was received by the petitioner on 4 December 2019, accepting the returned income. It is the petitioner’s case that while preparing the return of income for Assessment Year 2022-2023, the petitioner realized the inadvertent mistake of double taxation of excess provision for bonus in Return of income for Assessment Years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 20212022. 8.

application for revision under Section 264 against the intimation under Section 143(1) dated 4 December 2019 on 7 November 2022 with a view to reduce the excess provision of Rs 11,37,047/- from the returned income. The petitioner also filed an application dated 17 February 2023 for condonation of delay. In the said proceedings, the petitioner placed on record a chart showing summary of bonus provisions written back relevant to the Assessment Years along with an explanation in brief. 9.

the impugned order dated 23 February 2024 by rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 264 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner should have filed a revised return of income. It is in these circumstances the present petition has been filed praying for the following substantial reliefs: Page 4 of 12 Sepeember 2024

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2024 (Exhibit-A) passed by Respondent No.1 and the order dated 4th December, 2019 (Exhibit-H) passed by the Respondent No.2. (b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondent No.1 and/or Respondent No.2 to allow the reduction of excess provisions of Rs. 11,37,047/- from the returned income.”

return of income under Section 139(5) had expired after which the petitioner realized it's inadvertent mistake that while filing return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. He submits that the petitioner had no option but to file revision under Section

assessment years in question, when there was certainly an error in the return of income filed by the Assessee. He would submit that Section 264 of the Act confers wide powers on the commissioner and they are meant to do justice, with a view that no tax is paid / collected which is not in accordance with law, being also the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. It is his contention that this is a clear case wherein there was an inadvertent Page 5 of 12 Sepeember 2024

mistake of double taxation of excess provisions made qua the bonus, in the return of income for the relevant assessment years, and which was required to be reduced from the income, failing which it would result in a situation, of an undue tax being deposited without there being any warrant in law. It is his submission that it is in these peculiar circumstances and as the time limit to file the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act had expired, the petitioner has no remedy but to file revision under Section 264 of the Act which is the whole intent and purpose of the said provisions. In support of his contentions Dr. K. Shivaram has relied on the decisions in Selvamuthukumar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr.1; Hapag Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of income-tax and Anr. 2, and Ena Chaudhuri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 3. 12.

would submit that respondent No.1 has taken a correct view of the matter and more particularly referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 4. He has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.S. Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax5 in support of his contentions. (2017) 394 ITR 247 (Mad.) (2022) 443 ITR 168 (Bom.) 3 (2023) 148 taxmann.com 100 (Calcutta) 4 (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) 5 (2008) 298 ITR 373 (AP) 1 2

Operative decision and relief

The revision proceedings are accordingly restored to the file of

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Selvamuthukumar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr.1
• India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of income-tax and Anr. 2
• Ena Chaudhuri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 3
• Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 4. He has also relied on
• M.S. Raju vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax5 in support of his
• Selvamuthukumar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. (supra) is
• Court in Ena Chaudhuri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 6 on the

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Remanded Or Restored. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance