|CORAM:||D. Manmohan VP, Sanjay Arora (AM)|
|CATCH WORDS:||admission of appeal, Revision|
|DATE:||January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||January 16, 2015 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 264: ITAT entertains appeal against order passed by CIT u/s 264|
The assessee sought revision of its assessment, finalized u/s.143(3) on 03.12.2008, accepting the returned income of Rs.35,19,179/-, u/s.264 of the Act on the ground that the deduction u/s.80-IB, to which it was entitled, had not been allowed per the impugned assessment. The deduction, for which it was otherwise eligible since the first year of operating a cold storage, i.e., A.Y. 1998-99, could not be claimed up to the immediately preceding year on account of continued losses. The assessee returning profit for the first time for the current year, forgot to prefer the claim u/s.80-IB, and hence its petition u/s.264. The ld. CIT, as a competent authority, rejected the same on the ground that the said claim had not been made either per the return of income for the year or even during the assessment proceedings, so that the application for revision u/s.264, as made, is misconceived and not maintainable. Reliance was also placed by him on the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT  284 ITR 323 (SC). On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal:
We have heard the party before us, and perused the material on record. Without doubt, the impugned order is not a speaking order, i.e., not dilating on the scope of the revision u/s.264, on the maintainability or otherwise in law of the petition under which the fate of the assessee’s appeal would lie. The assessee, on the other hand, has cited several decisions by the higher courts of law, including by the apex court, qua the scope of provision u/s.264, viz. Dwarka Nath vs. ITO  57 ITR 349 (SC); Ramdev Exports vs. CIT  251 ITR 873 (Guj); Parekh Brothers vs. CIT  150 ITR 105 (Ker); and M. Chettyappan & Ors. v. CIT  110 ITR 684 (Mad). Under the circumstances, we only consider it fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT to adjudicate the assessee-appellant’s application afresh in accordance with the law per a speaking order and after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to it.