In the original return and revised return the petitioner has not claimed the benefit of article 10 of the India-Kuwait Double taxation Avoidance Agreement. The petitioner filed application under section 264 of the Act. The application was rejected on the ground that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) and there was no apparent error on the record in the assessment order. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not limit the power of the Commissioner to correct errors committed by the sub-ordinate authorities and can even be exercised where errors are committed by the assessee. There is nothing in section 264 which places any restriction on the Commissioner’s revisional power to give relief to the assessee in a case where the assessee detects mistakes after the assessment is completed. Court held that the very foundation of the application under section 264 was that the assessee had inadvertently failed to claim the benefit of article 10 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Kuwait, under which the dividend distribution was taxed at a lower rate. The Commissioner had the power to consider the claim under section 264. The rejection of the application for revision was not valid. Geekay Security  Services (P) Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 192 (Bom)(HC) followed. (AY. 2016-17)