The petitioner filed its return of income for the AY. 2018–19, wherein the excess amount of provision for payment of bonus was voluntarily disallowed u/s 43B.  The said excess provision had been returned back by crediting the salary amount in the subsequent AY. 2019–20.  However, the petitioner inadvertently made a bonafide mistake while computing the income for the AY. 2019-20 to the extent that the petitioner did not reduce the excess provision for payment of bonus and thus, resulted into double taxation of excess provision.  The return of income was processed u/s 143(1).  At the time of preparing return of income for the AY. 2022–23, the petitioner realized such inadvertent mistake of double provision of excess payment of bonus in the return of income filed for all the relevant previous years.  The petitioner therefore, filed an application for revision u/s 264 against the intimation u/s 143(1), but the same has been rejected by the Pr. CIT merely on the ground that the assessee did not file revised return u/s 139(5) for such claim.  On Writ Petition, the Hon’ble Court noted that the object of the provisions of Section 264 is that the law would not be obvious to any bonafide human mistake which may occur at the end of the assessee and which if otherwise permitted to remain, may lead to injustice or the provisions of law being breached.  The Hon’ble Court further held that the powers u/s 264 is not confined merely to erroneous orders passed by the lower authorities and on this premises the orders of the Pr. CIT set aside.(AY.2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22)