The Assessee filed the petition dated 22.01.2018 under S.  264 of the IT act, to process the rectified return and to correct the mistake in the assessed income. The Assessee has filed the revised return claiming certain inadvertent errors that had crept in the original return and the processing of the same had resulted in a demand, that the Assessee felt was flawed. The revised return of income filed on 09.01.2016 was not taken up for processing, since the revised return was filed beyond the due date provided under S.  139 of the IT Act.  CIT dismissed the petition on the ground that as the claim was made after the limitation prescribed u/s 139(5 ) of the Act . On writ the Court held that the powers conferred on the Commissioner under S.  264 of the IT Act, is not only wider in its scope and also intended for the purpose of preventing miscarriage of justice and for providing relief to an Assessee, which he is otherwise entitled to, but for the order under challenge in revision.  Court observed that it appears that the Revenue by making such contention, is sought to justify the collection of excess tax over and above the tax payable by the Assessee, even though they admit that only due to inadvertent mistake, a wrong entry was made by the Assessee with lessor figure of the relevant expenses than the actual expenses met out.  Court held that  the Article 265 of the Constitution of India specifically states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Therefore, both the levy and collection must be done with the authority of law, and if any levy and collection, later are found to be wrong and without authority of law, certainly, such levy and collection cannot withstand the scrutiny of the above constitutional provision and thus, such levy and collection would amount in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly on the facts and circumstances of the present case, that a mere typographical error committed by the Assessee cannot cost them payment of excess tax as collected by the Revenue. Certainly, the denial for repayment of such excess collection would amount to great injustice to the Assessee.    Court also observed that ,   even though the Statute prescribes a time limit for getting the relief before the Assessing Officer by way of filing a revised return, ithere is no embargo on the Commissioner to exercise his power and grant the relief under Section 264 of the IT Act. In other words, for granting the relief to an Assessee, which the Commissioner finds that the  Assessee is entitled to otherwise, no time restriction is provided under S. 264 of the IT Act, if such revisional jurisdiction is invoked by the Assessee by making an application under Section 264 of the IT Act. However, the Commissioner is not entitled to revise any order under Section 264 on his own motion, if the order has been made more than an year previously. Thus, it is manifest that only suo-motu power of the Commissioner under Section 264 of the IT Act, is restricted against an order passed within one year, whereas no such restriction is imposed on the Commissioner to exercise his power in respect of an order, which has been passed more than one  year, if such revisional power is sought to be invoked at the instance of the Assessee by making an application under S. 264 of the IT Act. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the respondent for considering the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Court also observed that  Article 265 of the Constitution of India specifically states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Therefore, both the levy and collection must be with the authority of law, and if any levy or collection, later is found to be wrong or without authority of law, certainly, such levy or collection cannot withstand the scrutiny of the Constitutional provision and would be in violation of article 265 of the Constitution of India .( AY. 2013 -14)