JUDGMENT

Akil Kureshi, J. - Petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27th March, 2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Respondent No.2 herein, rejecting Petitioner''s Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Brief facts are as under:

3. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, Petitioner had filed return of income. The return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act, without scrutiny. The case of the Petitioner is that, Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,06,17942/towards employee''s contribution of PF which was belated, nevertheless made before the due date of filing the return. According to the Petitioner, therefore, by virtue of law settled by this Court, such contribution would be allowable deduction. However, erroneously, Petitioner had not made such a claim in the return. Since return was not taken in scrutiny, Petitioner had no scope of persuading the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction. The Department, therefore, raised the demand of Rs. 1,28,02,720/on the basis of the return filed by the Petitioner.

4. Petitioner filed an application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act before the Assessing Officer, in which, it was stated that the Chartered Accountant of the Petitioner Company had filed the return, in which, erroneous disallownce in relation to the said expenditure, was made. Petitioner also placed full details of the payments of the employee''s contribution to the fund.

5. The Petitioner also filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act and requested that the Petitioner be granted the benefit of the expenditure since it is duly established on facts and in law. Commissioner dismissed the said Revision Petition by the impugned order, only on the ground that, the Petitioner not having claimed it in the return and not having filed revised return, cannot raise claim in Revision Petition. It is against this order of the Commissioner that this Petition is filed.

6. The issue before us, is very narrow. The question is, can the Commissioner, in case, as noted above, entertain Petitioner''s claim and grant a relief in exercise of revision power under Section 264 of the Act. The issue is covered by several Judgments of the different High Courts, duly supported by the Judgment of the Supreme Court.

7-8. We may make brief reference to only couple of them. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hitech Analystical Services vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 251 Taxman 60/86 had occasion to deal with a very similar issue. The Court noticed the Judgments of various High Courts and the Supreme Court and observed as under:

"7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we see no error in the view of the Commissioner when he holds that the expenditure could not have been allowed in the hands of the partners. Even the Petitioners are unable to point out any manifest error in the view of the Assessing Officer and he Commissioner since in the hands of the partners, the expenditure would be related to earning exempt income.

Nevertheless, the claim of the petitioners was not confined to the expenditure being allowed in the hands of the partners. An alternative claim was put forth by the partners and the firm that at any rate such expenditure cannot be disallowed in the hands of the firm. In this regard, we may recall that even during the assessment of the partner, a stand was taken that the Assessing Officer of the firm may allow such expenditure. Therefore, after the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment in case of the partner on 13.01.2015, the partnership firm had filed a revised computation of income before the Assessing Officer before whom the assessment of the firm was still pending. To the extent, when the Commissioner holds that suc