The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly in relation to the revision petition and the maintainability of claims for refund.

AKIL KURESHI, J.

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the respondent Commissioner of Income tax in the following background.

2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act for the assessment year 2003-2004, the petitioner had filed a return of income. In the accounts for the financial year 2002-2003 relevant to the previous assessment year 2003-2004, the petitioner had made a provision for commission for performance guarantee of Rs. 69.50 lacs payable to the suppliers and also provided for aggregate commission of Rs. 1.18 crores (rounded off) for the purchases. Since this expenditure was allowable under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), the same was debited to Profit and Loss account and the business profit was accordingly computed. According to the petitioner, however, while computing the profit and loss of the business, due to misunderstanding, these amounts totalling to Rs. 1.87 crores (rounded off) were added back while computing total income. According to the petitioner, thus the returned income of Rs. 3.31 crores (rounded off) included this sum of Rs. 1.87 crores erroneously added. In the statement of income accompanying the return for the assessment year 2003-2004, the petitioner had put the following note :

“During the year under review the assessee company has made provision for commission for performance guarantee given to suppliers on behalf of the company of Rs. 69,50,000/- and has also provided for commission on purchase aggregating to Rs. 1,18,21,456/-. The same has been disallowed and will be claimed when actual payment with necessary documents will be made as the company is still in the process of negotiating the same.”

3. Case of the petitioner further is that these amounts were payable to one BG Energy Holdings Ltd. in accordance with the agreement between the parties and the expenditure was thus allowable deduction which the petitioner wrongly did not claim. In fact, such amount of Rs. 1.87 crores was paid by the petitioner for the subsequent year but was not claimed since the petitioner followed the mercantile system of accounting.

4. The return of the petitioner was accepted by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Act without scrutiny. The Assessing Officer in terms of the return also issued a refund order dated 31.3.2005 for a sum of Rs. 32,710/-. According to the department, the refund was sent to the petitioner along with an intimation of acceptance of return under section 143(1) of the Act. Though the petitioner disputes having received any such intimation, it is not in dispute that the refund was received by the petitioner and was credited in the petitioner's bank account on 11.5.2005

5. The petitioner having realised the error in not claiming the deduction of expenditure on accrual basis while filing the return, filed a petition before the Commissioner under section 264 of the Income Tax Act on 29.12.2008 seeking revision of the intimation/order under section 143(1) of the Act. The Commissioner under a communication dated 1.4.2009 conveyed to the petitioner that if the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was served on 27.3.2009 as contended by the petitioner, revision petition was premature. He therefore, called upon the petitioner to produce necessary evidence in support of the date of receipt/communication of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, failing which, the revision petition will be rejected as premature.

6. Instead of replying to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed a fresh petition for revision on 13.4.2009 This revision petition was rejected by an order dated 3.12.2009 inter-alia, on the ground that the revision petition was filed after a lapse of about six years. The petitioner thereupon approached the High Court by ling Special Civil Application No. 3760/2010. The petition came to be disposed of by the judgement dated 13.7.2010 The Court was of the opinion that if the Comm