JUDGMENT

B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. : This review petition has been filed with a prayer to review the judgment dated 15.12.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(c) No.4554 of 2011 on the ground that the said judgment suffers from error/mistake due to incorrect appreciation of facts and circumstances involved as well as the same is contrary to the settled position of law with respect to the issues involved.

2.Besides the ground of challenge stated above, which is general in nature, Mr. N.L. Das, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner challenges the impugned judgment on the following specific grounds;

(i)The notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioner on 10.10.2007 followed by the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 03.10.2008. According to Mr. N.L. Das, the notice under Section 42(1) is the initiating point of an assessment. Section 142 of the Act states “Inquiry before Assessment” and the hearing under Section 143 is “Assessment”. Thus, the very intent of the statute in designating such hearing is clearly manifested in the idea that there has to be an initiation of assessment proceeding under Section 142(1) and only after such initiation, the actual assessment proceeding can begin by issuing a notice under Section 143(2). However, in the present case, the assessment proceeding ought to be vitiated since the notice under Section 143(2) was premature due to lack of notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act.

(ii)Learned C.I.T. was erred in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner was raising a fresh claim of relief before the Assessing Officer and thus declined to interfere with the assessment order.

This Court, while deciding the question Nos.(i) to (iii), came to a conclusion that the petitioner-assessee was not entitled to make any fresh claim of exemption either before the A.O. or before the C.I.T. otherwise then by way of filing revised return under Section 139(5). The only way that was available to the petitioner to claim such exemption is by filing a revised return under Section 139(5). The Court erred in arriving at such conclusion on a wrongful assumption of law.

(iii)The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT; 284 ITR 323 (SC) is in relation to the powers of the Assessing Officer as to whether he can entertain fresh claims of exemption except by way of revised return. However, in the present case, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 264 before the learned CIT seeking allowance of the claim of deduction. Since the judgment of the Supreme Court relates to power of the Assessing Officer and the case of the petitioner relates to the revisionary power of learned CIT under Section 264, the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present case.

(iv)The powers of CIT under Section 264 are very wide and are not restricted to just a mere supervision of the order of the A.O. The CIT has apply his mind to the claim of the assessee that the error that has crept into its return of income ought to have been rectified. There is nothing under Section 264 which places any restriction on the CIT’s revisional power to give relief to the assessee in a case where the assessee detects the mistake on account of which he was over-assessed after the assessment was completed. In fact, it is open to the CIT, while exercising revisional powers to entertain even a new ground that was never urged before the lower authorities.

(v)The petitioner-assessee has correctly preferred the revised statement to modify its return instead of filing revised return. The A.O. was competent enough to allow the claim of deduction subsequently reflected in the revised statement. Opp.Parties have jurisdiction to examine the question arising from the revised statement filed to uphold the tax liability, if any, of the petitioner if it was not raised correctly before the A.O. The purpose of scrutiny/assessment was to assess correctly the tax