JUDGMENT :

Manmohan, J.

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31st March, 2021 passed by the respondent-PCIT, Delhi-7, for assessment year 2016-17, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’], whereby the respondent refrained from giving any finding on merits and declined to entertain the petitioner’s revision petition. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner’s revision petition on merits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee states that the petitioner, a wholly owned subsidiary of Riso Corporation Japan, had remitted dividend to its holding company on which tax was deducted @ 20.35% under Section 115-O of the Act, even though as per the beneficial provisions of India-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), the tax was required to be deducted @ 10%. He points out that to rectify the said inadvertent error, petitioner filed the revision petition seeking refund of excess tax.

4. He submits that the respondent was statutorily obliged to give a finding on merits, with respect to excess deposit of tax, while deciding the r