While dismissing a writ petition, the Kerala High Court held that when an assessee omitted to make a claim of deduction in the original return, the most appropriate remedy is to file a rectification application under section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Justice Muhamed Mustaque has clarified that in such cases, revision is not authorized by law.
Petitioner-Assessee, an individual, omitted to claim income tax deduction in respect of LIC premium and public provident fund investment in terms of Chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Later, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Income Tax seeking revision under the provisions of Section 264 of Income Tax Act 1961. However, the Commissioner rejected the application.
Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ petition contending that a revisional authority ought to have found that there is a mistake crept in the filing of return.
On behalf of the department, it was contended that there was no order passed by the assessing authority therefore no revision would lie under the law. It is further pointed out that petitioner was entitled to file a rectification application under Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, to rectify the mistake within the time prescribed.
The bench noticed the decision of the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited wherein it was held that no revision would lie as against the intimation of assessment.
Dismissing the petition, the Court ruled that “even if petitioner is having a meritorious contention, the petitioner’s remedy was to file a rectification application. Having not availed such remedy, petitioner cannot claim any benefit of deduction.”
Read the full text of the Judgment below.
