The assessee did not claim deduction under S. 80-IB(10) of the Act on its income earned from housing development projects. Assessment was completed u/ 143(3) of the Act. The revision petition was filed after the stipulated period of limitation. The Commissioner refused to condone the delay. The assessee filed writ petitions against such order. The court ordered the condonation of delay and directed the Commissioner to decide the revision applications on its merits. The Commissioner rejected the revision application on the ground that the assessee had not made a claim under section 80-IB(10) in the return of income and that by virtue of section 80A(5) , the claim could not be granted. In a writ petition the assessee contended that the restriction imposed by section 80A(5) applied only to the powers of the Assessing Officer and not to the Commissioner in exercise of revisional powers. Dismissing the petition the Court held that sub-section (5) of section 80A mandated that if the assessee failed to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under the provisions specified therein, it would not be granted to the assessee. This condition or restriction was not relatable to the Assessing Officer or the Income-tax authority. The provision contained in sub-section (5) of section 80A was a statutory interdiction which would prevent the Commissioner from granting a fresh claim in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 264. The width of the powers of the Commissioner under section 264 would not permit him to ignore the requirement of section 80A(5) or allow the claim of an assessee in breach of the condition contained therein. The assessee having given up the challenge to the Constitutionality of the retrospectivity of section80A(5) , could not bring in the concept of reading down of the provision in order to save it from being unconstitutional. The provision contained in sub-section (5) of section 80A was to be enforced as it stood in the statute book. (AY. 2008 -09)