The revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act can rectify bona fide errors in a return filed by an assessee, despite the initial refusal to amend.

Heard on : 15.07.2025 Judgment on : 15th July, 2025 RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J (ORAL):

1. Challenging the order dated 4th March, 2025 passed by the respondent no. 1 for the assessment year 2022-23 whereby the respondent no. 1 had purported to hold that a the return filed by an assessee in ITR-6 cannot be altered even by invoking the provision of Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) except by an assessee, the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner claims to be an assessee within the meaning of the said Act, and in usual course had filed its return for the assessment year 2022-23. By reason of oversight certain figures which ought to have been provided in part-A of the profit and loss accounts of the petitioner in the said return were not included in such part. The aforesaid mistake was detected when an intimation was received by the petitioner under Section 143(1) of the said Act on 7th August, 2023, intimating that the total income of the petitioner for the assessment year 2022-23 was determined to be Rs.3,58,76,000/- instead of Rs.9,54,872/- as disclosed by the petitioner. A consequential demand of Rs.1,02,60,400/- was also raised on the petitioner.

3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid demand had been raised by reasons of failure on the part of the petitioner to incorporate the details of the figures of the profit and loss in Part-A which had been missed out by the petitioner. The missed out particulars are more fully detailed in paragraph - 3 of the petition. According to the petitioner the resultant demand was by reasons of failure to incorporate the above figures.

4. Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that if such figure were considered, the demand would not have been raised by the assessing officer. According to him, by the time the petitioner received the notice under Section 143(1) of the said Act, the time to file the revised return had already expired. Finding no other alternative the petitioner had invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 of the said Act thereby, calling upon the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-1 being the appropriate authority to consider the income of the petitioner correctly. Along with the above the petitioner had disclosed the audited accounts for the assessment year i.e. 2022-23, the tax audit report and had claimed that as per such disclosure, the petitioner’s net profit is Rs.10,20,370/- on a turnover of Rs.5,46,59,310/-. Having regard thereto, it was contended that the profit of the petitioner for the relevant assessment year under consideration is only Rs.9,54,872/- as against the assessed amount of Rs.3,58,76,000/-.

5. Records reveal that the said application has been rejected by the appropriate authority by the order dated 4th March, 2025 by noting that apart from the assessee, none is competent to alter the return filed in form ITR-VI.

6. Mr. Dudhoria, learned Advocate appears for the department.

7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. From a perusal of the order impugned, it would transpire as rightly pointed out by Mr. Sengupta that the appropriate authority despite acknowledging the fact that the application filed by the petitioner was maintainable in law had refused to permit the petitioner to rely on the disclosure made in connection with the profit and loss account only on the consideration that the particulars of the return cannot be altered by a person other than the assessee hims