The court emphasized the Commissioner's obligation to consider the merits of a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, especially in cases of technical errors affecting tax claims.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jimi S. Patel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent/State.

3. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today.

4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the respondent Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) as well as order/communication dated 29.03.2017 issued under section 154 of the Act.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a charitable trust registered with Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad having Registration No. F-227 dated 19.08.1964. Subsequently, the trust was granted registration under section 12AA of the Act on 06.01.1975 and allotted registration no. 64G.71/74. The said trust is running students hostel in Ahmedabad and Dharmashala in Ambaji.

6. The petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on 20.09.2014 by claiming application of income of Rs. 16,09,553/- on Gross Total Income of Rs. 21,88,443/-. After claiming aforesaid application of income, tax payable was arrived at Rs. 5214/- which was adjusted against Tax Deducted at Source of Rs. 45,604/- and accordingly, refund of Rs. 40,360/- was due to the petitioner at time of filing of original return as per the acknowledgement of income generated from the portal of Income Tax Department. Books of Accounts of petitioner is also audited under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and Income Tax Act under section 12A(b) in FORM No. 10B by the independent Chartered Accountant. It is the case of the petitioner that on perusal of audit report in FORM 10B, it can be seen that auditor has certified that amount of Rs. 16,09,553/- was applied by the petitioner trust during the year under consideration.

7. Thereafter, return of income filed by the petitioner was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by Centralized Processing Center of the Income Tax Department vide intimation/order dated 18.11.2016. In said Intimation/Order passed under section 143(1), demand of Rs. 4,80,470/- was generated by the CPC as against refund of Rs. 40,390/- claimed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of aforesaid intimation, the petitioner came to know that while uploading income tax return in XML utility, due to unknown technical glitch, amount feeded in the column of application of income at column 9(ii) of Rs. 16,09,553/- was not fetched in final return uploaded in XML Utility and hence, against the column 9(ii), the amount of application was shown as NIL and return was uploaded/filed as if the petitioner has not applied any income during the year under consideration towards the object of Trust. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his consultant failed to took note of said error at time of generation of acknowledgement of original income tax return due to the fact that in the Acknowledgement of Original Income Tax Return, amount shown as Refund due of Rs. 40,390/- and not tax payable of Rs. 4,80,470/-.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that on realisation of aforesaid mistake, the petitioner has filed rectified return through Return Data Correction Facility available on portal vide rectification request dated 01.02.2017. The aforesaid rectification request was rejected by the CPC vide order passed under section 154 dated 29.03.2017 stating that “Fresh claim of Exemption/Income or other details in the return shall not be made in rectification request.”

9. Being aggrieved by the said rejection of rectification request, the petitioner has pre