BHUPINDER KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA

WPC/422/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Bhupinder Kumar, the petitioner, who contested the denial of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the imposition of penalties related to the non-disclosure of income from the sale of land. The petitioner had sold a plot of land and failed to disclose the income in his tax return for the assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer added the income to the petitioner's total income, imposed tax and interest, and initiated penalty proceedings. The Revisional Authority upheld these decisions. The petitioner challenged these decisions in the High Court of Jharkhand, which dismissed his writ petition, allowing him the option to appeal against the penalty order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686260 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT, ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards and Another Vrs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. & Others, Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -I Vrs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of Income-Tax Vrs. Smt. Beena K. Jain, Sri Manohar Reddy Basani Vrs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad, Jute Corporation of India Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax versus Gurjargravures P. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL LAMBA
• Assessee Lawyers: N K PASARI; SIDHI JALAN; VISHAKHA GUPTA
• Keywords: Assessment; Capital Gains; Exemption; Income Tax; Penalty; Revisional Authority
• Section: 143(3); 271(1)(c); 54F; 264

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 422 of 2019 --- Bhupinder Kumar --- --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Taxes, Hazaribag 3. The Income Tax Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro --- --- --- Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Through Video Conferencing --- For the Petitioner : M/s N.K. Pasari, Sidhi Jalan, Vishakha Gupta, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate 07/11.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.K. Pasari assisted by Ms. Sidhi Jalan and Ms.Vishakha Gupta and Mr. Rahul Lamba for the respondent Income Tax Department. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in revision, the petitioner has approached this Court. The Revisional authority upheld the order passed by the learned Assessing authority under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure-4) for the F.Y. 2013-14 corresponding to A.Y. 2014-15 also impugned herein where under the assessing authority respondent no.3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption under Section 54 F of the Act and levied the tax thereupon and also recommended for initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent no.3 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Petitioner has raised the following questions of law for determination in the instant writ petition. a) Whether the benefit of exemption under Section 54F of the Act can be denied merely because petitioner did not claim the same while furnishing the returns? b) Whether the claim made at the stage of assessment or before the revisional authority would be denied on the misinterpretation of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)? 2 c) Whether the petitioner can be made to suffer on account of bonafide mistake, which in no manner is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue? d) Whether the Revenue Officers have discharged their responsibility within four corners of law? e) Whether the CBDT Circular no. 014(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 has to be strictly adhered too? 4. Facts necessary for appreciating the issues of law at hand raised by the petitioner are briefly noticed hereunder: Petitioner purchased a plot of land in Punjab on 15.04.2013 (Annexure-2). On 24.06.2013 petitioner executed registered sale deed in terms of the sale transaction and transferred the land in favour of the purchaser at Bokaro (Annexure-3). He filed e-return for the F.Y. 2013-14 corresponding to A.Y. 2014-15 on 10.10.2014 declaring his total income Rs.2,74,430/-. His case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Sale consideration of property in ITR is less than the consideration reported”. During the course of assessment proceeding, he claimed capital gains and consequent exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act stating that an amount of Rs.41 Lakhs out of sale consideration was reinvested in the same financial year for Rs.43,95,000/-. He admitted his mistake in not claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Act while filing his return. The assessing authority held that unless a revised return could be filed within the due date, no exemption could be allowed and added the sale consideration to the total income of the assesse and imposed tax, interest and also recommended for initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act by order dated 26.10.2016. Petitioner preferred a revision application on 07.11.2016(Annexure-5) before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Hazaribag under Section 264 of the Act instead of preferring an appeal. Petitioner claims to have gone to Australia to visit his daughter in the year 2017 and returned on 09.12.2018. For that purpose he had to furnish asset valuation report in India at the Australian Embassy for visa purposes, which was done on 04.04.2014 (Annexure- 6). As per his case, during revisional proceedings, petitioner did not participate, since he was out of India from 21.12.2017 till 09.12.2018. Therefore, notices dated 19.12.2017 and 24.01.2018 remained 3 uncomplied. Revision petition was dismissed on 26.03.2018 (Annexure- 8). Proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act ended up in imposition of penalty three times by order dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure- 9). Thereafter the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. In the counter affidavit respondents have taken the following stand: A plea of alternative remedy has been raised against the order imposing penalty as is available under Section 246 A(1)(i)(B) of the Act. Respondents have contended that petitioner did not disclose the income out of sale consideration amount of Rs.59,49,000/- in his return or otherwise before the Department prior to the case being selected for scrutiny. It was during the assessment proceedings initiated after the scrutiny, the concealed income was discovered. Petitioner had not even disclosed that he had landed asset/ property in any of the previous return filed with the respondent department in at least last three assessment year prior to A.Y. 2014-15 in which he concealed the sale transaction. Therefore, he had concealed the sale transaction while furnishing his return. In that case, he is not entitled to get any exemption from payment of income tax on the said concealed income. Petitioner has not bonafidely disclosed all his income or much less the sale consideration. He had not even made a whisper of his income or the sale consideration, amounting to Rs.59,49,000/- from the sale of his land at Bokaro while filing his returns. He had not filed any revised return for the A.Y. 2014- 15 for claiming exemption. Only during the assessment proceedings just by way of filing a calculation sheet, he had claimed an exemption. Such exemption is inadmissible in the light of decision rendered by the Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). Under the Act, the assessing officer does not have any power to allow any exemption from payment of income tax to an assesse in absence of the claim of exemption being made in the return or the revised return of the assesse. It is submitted that the exemption under any levy or tax has to be construed strictly and the power can be exercised only in the in the manner prescribed under the concerned statute. Learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards and Another Vrs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. & Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 634 wherein, the ratio 4 laid down in the celebrated decision of Taylor Vrs. Taylor[1875 LR 1 Ch D 426] has been followed. Petitioner in the revised computation of capital gains for the A.Y. 2014-15 filed along with the revision application before the Commissioner of Income Tax/ respondent no.2 , claimed a taxable capital gain of Rs.22,48,678/- after applying the exemption under Section 54F of the Act, as per his own statement at page 88 of the writ petition. The conduct of the petitioner is not bonafide and as such he is not entitled to any relief under writ jurisdiction. The penalty proceedings are sustainable on account of suppression of income by the assesse. Therefore the order of penalty is also otherwise proper in the eye of law. Therefore there is no illegality in the assessment order or in the revisional order which requires interference by this court, 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayer has inter alia made the following submissions: It is argued that under Section 54 of the Act any capital gains arising out of the transfer of long term capital asset being buildings or land appertained thereto and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head income from house property, the assesse has to within a period of one year before or two year after the date on which the transfer took place or within a period of three years after that date construct one residential house in India, then he would be entitled to exemption from income being charged to tax. The purchase of the property at Punjab prior to the execution of registered sale deed would make no difference to his entitlement. Petitioner being an ordinary citizen, ignorant of the law, has admitted his mistake when his case was taken up for assessment upon scrutiny. The assessing officer is under an obligation to guide the assesse as to the correct provision of law in the light of the circular dated 11.04.1955. If at the stage of assessment, even after scrutiny, the income under capital gains is eligible for exemption under Section 54 or Section 54 F, the assessing officer ought to have allowed it instead of adding it to his income for the purposes of imposing tax, interest and initiating penalty proceedings. The facts of the case of the petitioner does not show a deliberate concealment of income rather a bonafide mistake. 7. The decision rendered in Goetze (India) Ltd (supra) has been explained in subsequent decisions by the Bombay High Court in the case 5 of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -I Vrs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. reported Manu /MH/0878/2012. It has been explained that such a claim can be considered by the higher authority like the revisional authority even if the assessing authority is precluded from entertaining such a claim on the basis of filing a calculation sheet only. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1993 SCC online Bom 701 in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vrs. Smt. Beena K. Jain on the proposition that an exemption under section 54 F of the act can be claimed considering the date of the possession of the new residential premises instead of the date of sale agreement and the date of registration. The fact that the purchase of land at Punjab was made prior to the execution of the registered sale deed of the land at Bokaro would make no difference as to the entitlement of exemption under section 54 of 54F. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the fact that petitioner was out of India during the relevant period, he could not participate in the revisional proceedings. However, the revisional authority has without any application of mind accepted the findings of the assessing officer and upheld the imposition of tax, interest and the initiation on of penalty proceedings against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in a case of Sri Manohar Reddy Basani Vrs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad in ITA. No. 13071307/Hyd/2017 which also arose upon scrutiny and related to a claim of exemption under section 54F of the act. 8. Relying upon these decisions Mr. Pasari submit that if the bonafide inadvertent non-disclosure of income arising from long term capital gains in the return is kept aside for a moment, the claim for exemption made before the assessing authority even during scrutiny or by the revisional authority could not have been denied if it is otherwise permissible and in no manner prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order of penalty has been passed consequent to the order of the assessing authority upheld in revision, petitioner has challenged it in the present proceeding instead of splitting his cause of action and moving in appeal against it. Therefore, all the reliefs are maintainable under writ jurisdiction in the 6 light of the settled principles governing the exercise of powers of judicial review. The assesse/ petitioner should not be made to suffer on account of bonafide mistake if the entitlement to exemption is made out on the facts of the case at hand under the provision of Section 54 or 54 F of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue in reply refers to the registered sale deed at page 62 of the writ petition. He submits that the recital of the deed itself makes it clear that there are no residential building subjected to transfer. It is only the vacant land described in the deed which have been sold. As such, provisions of section 54 would not apply. Petitioner is himself not sure as to under which provision section 54 or 54F such an exemption can be claimed. Learned counsel for the revenue further submits that if the petitioner did not show the income in its return, he cannot claim exemption at the stage of assessment proceedings by filing a calculation sheet only, without filing any revised return in terms of section 54F or 54 of the Act following the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd(supra). He has distinguished the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and Smt. Beena K. Jain (supra). According to him, in the case of Smt. Beena K. Jain (supra), the facts disclose that the assesse had claimed the benefit of exemption under the section 54F of the income tax act which was granted by the Tribunal. In this case the petitioner did not disclose his income arising from the transfer of long term capital asset. As such after scrutiny any such claim based on a calculation sheet without filing a revised return was impermissible. The date of purchase of the new property at Punjab would become immaterial on account of concealment of income by him. In reference to the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.(supra) it is submitted that the instant decision is distinguishable on facts as the appellate authority had considered the additional claim and directed the assessing officer to allow the deduction of Rs.40 lakh under Section 43B of the Act. The assessing officer was only required to compute the respondent’s tax liability which he should have done in accordance with the orders passed by the appellate authorities. For that reason, Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the conclusion that the error in not 7 claiming the deduction in the return of income was inadvertence cannot be faulted for more than one reason. In the present case, petitioner has not invoked the appellate remedy and straightway approached the Commissioner in revision under Section 264 of the Act, which has a very limited jurisdiction. If the findings of the assessing authority on concealment of income in such circumstances did not suffer from any errors of law or appreciation of the facts of the case bordering perversity, the Commissioner was right in refusing to interfere. More over the petitioner did not participate in the revisional proceedings despite repeated notices and service of notice through email as well. As such no case has been made out by the petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction when the orders of the assessing authority and the revisional authority do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and moreover when the action of the assesse is not bonafide. 10. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the pleadings of record and also taken into account the decisions relied upon by them in support of their submission. The factual matrix of the case undisputed on the part of the parties show that the petitioner failed to disclose the income arising out of transfer of long terms capital assets to the tune of Rs 59,49,000/- in the return filed in the A.Y. 2014-15 despite the sale of his landed property at Bokaro through registered sale on 24.06.2013 i.e., in the F.Y. 2013-14. Petitioner had not disclosed his assets before the income tax department in any of the preceding three assessment years. It was only upon perusal of CIB information extracted from ITD application that it was found that he had sold immovable property of Rs59,49000/-but neither the sale consideration nor capital gains was shown by him in the return filed in the A.Y. 2014-15. In those circumstances his case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for assessment. During the course of assessment, petitioner filed a calculation sheet claiming exemption instead of filing a revised return disclosing income arisen from transfer of long terms capital asset due to transfer of his landed property at Bokaro through registered sale deed dated 24.06.2013. It is well settled that such additional claim cannot be made before the assessing officer under the Act to make an amendment in the return without filing a revised return. 11. The ratio rendered by the Apex court in the case of Goetze (India) 8 Ltd (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the revenue applies to the case of the petitioner at hand. Petitioner confessed his mistake only after his case was taken up for scrutiny that he had neither shown the income from the capital gains on transfer of his land in the return filed for the A.Y. 2014-15, nor obviously claimed any exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The assessing authority in those circumstances assessed the Income from the transfer of long term capital assets and added it to his income while imposing tax whereupon along with interest and initiated penalty proceedings. Petitioner thereafter preferred revision petition u/s 264 of the Act instead of moving in appeal. He failed to attend the proceedings before the revisional authority. Notices pertaining to the revision proceedings were issued to him on 19.12.2017 but no reply was received in the specified date i.e., 27.12.2017. Reminder was again issued to the assesse on 24.01.2018 refixing the date for appearing on 30.01.2018. On 29.01.2018 the assesse pleaded for an adjournment for one month. However, no reply was received from the assesse till the date of the passing of the order. In those circumstances, Revisional Authority arrived at a finding that assessee had neither disclosed the sale consideration/ capital gains on account of sale of land nor claimed any exemption under Section 54F of the Act in his return of his income. Assesse had also not shown the figure of assets and liabilities in the column of balance sheet in his return of income of Part-A of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2014 as well as capital gains of schedule CGA of return of income remained totally blank. The scrutiny assessment was taken only after verification of the ITS data that the assesse has sold the land amounting to Rs.59,49,000/- at Bokaro during the said financial year but had not disclosed it in his return nor claimed exemption. The assesse has not controverted the statement of the Revenue that no earlier point of time, the assets were disclosed to the department nor had he disclosed it after its disposal till his case was selected for scrutiny. It is not a case where the assesse had filed inaccurate returns in respect of details of income. The earlier income received from transfer of long term capital gains was not shown in the IT return filed before the department. Even at the stage of the revisional proceedings, the petitioner was not sure as to under which provision, his claim for exemption is admissible under Section 54 or 54F of the Act. Considering those circumstances, the 9 revisional authority did not find any substance in the claim of exemption put forward by the assesse. 12. The case of pruthvi Broker and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd (Supra), relied upon by the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts. The Assessee / Respondent in that case had filed his return for A.Y. 2004-05 on 18.10.2004. The same was processed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act on 31.03.2005. A notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act was issued on 10.08.2005. The Respondent was also served with a letter dated 24.06.2006 calling for certain information. During the proceedings, it was noticed that the Respondent-Assessee had claimed deduction under section 43B of the I.T. Act in respect of payment of SEBI fees of Rs. 10.00 lakhs each paid on 16.07.2004 and 29.04.2004 i.e. during F.Y 2004-05, relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. Thus, admittedly, for the relevant A.Y. 2004-05, the Respondent was not entitled to a deduction in respect of such payments. The Respondent, in course of such proceedings before the Assessing Officer, stated that the claim was made through inadvertence. However, he made a claim of Rs. 40.00 lakhs under section 43B of the I.T. Act also being payment of SEBI fees, but made on 09.05.2003 i.e. F.Y. 2003-04 corresponding to F.Y. 2004-05. The Respondent in his response to the notice by the Assessing Officer stated inter-alia as under: “Further the assessee company had made another payment of SEBI fees of Rs. 40,00,000/- on 09.05.2003 which pertains to provisions made for the F.Y. 2001-02 and should be allowed on payment basis. However, during the assessment year 2004-05, by inadvertence the assessee company claimed a deduction of Rs. 20,00,000/- only as against the correct claim of Rs. 40,00,000/-. Therefore, in A.Y. 2004-05 the assessee company is entitled to a total deduction of Rs. 40,00,000/- as against Rs. 20,00,000/- claimed by the assessee in its return of income filed for the assessment year in question. We are enclosing herewith copies of proof of payments of SEBI fees for Rs. 40,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- & Rs. 10,00,000/-.”. 13. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim on the ground that he had no authority to allow any relief or deduction which have not been claimed in the return. The Respondent then raised a claim before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ITAT. The appeal before the CIT (A) against the assessment order was allowed vide order dated 01.08.2008. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), assessee had made an 10 application for deduction under section 43B in respect of said sum of Rs. 40.00 lakhs. The evidence was produced in the paper book only, in the appeal. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal and directed the A.O to allow deduction of Rs. 40.00 lakhs under section 43(B) of I.T. Act. Before the learned I.T.A.T, the appellant Revenue did not lay any challenge to the part of the order of CIT (A) having entertained the Respondent assessee’s claim for deduction on the ground that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to do so. The I.T.A.T disposed of the appellant- Revenue’s appeal which was the subject matter of Tax Appeal No. 3908/2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -I verses Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. decided by the learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. In this factual canvass, the learned Division Bench answered the substantial questions of law i.e. a. Whether an assessee can amend a return filed by him for making additional claim for deduction other than filing a revised return? b. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T, in law, was right in holding that the claim of deduction not made in the original return and not supported by a revised return, is admissible? c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal, in law, was right in not appreciating the fact that the A.O has no power to entertain a claim made by an assessee after filing a original return otherwise than filing a revised return? 14. The Bombay High Court relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax [1991 Supp (2) SCC 744] and also in the case of Goetze (India) Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax [(2006) 157 Taxman 1], held that the scope of power and jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority under section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act was co-terminus with that of the Income Tax Officer in disposing of the appeal against an order of assessment. The Appellate Authority can confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. The Appellate Authority while hearing the appeal against the order of subordinate authority, has all the powers which the Original authority may have in deciding the question before it, subject to restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. It was thus held that the Appellate Authority had the jurisdiction to entertain not 11 merely additional legal submissions, but also additional claims before it. However, the Appellate Authority has the discretion, whether or not to permit such additional claims. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax versus Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [(1978) 111 ITR 1] was also relied upon where it has been held that while permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground, the Appellate Authority should exercise its discretion in accordance with law. He must be satisfied that the ground raised was bonafide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The satisfaction of the Appellate Authority depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rigid principles or any hard and fast rule can be laid down for that purpose. There may be several factors justifying raising of a new plea and each case must be considered on its own facts. Hon’ble Bombay High Court while considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (Supra), observed that the question before the Court was, whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction before the Assessing authority other than by filing a revised return? Claim was not made before the Appellate Authority. The Assessing authority disallowed the deduction on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s appeal. The Tribunal, however, allowed the department’s appeal. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the assessee relied upon the judgment in the case of Thermal Power Company Limited versus Commissioner of Income-Tax [(1997) 7 SCC 489] contending that it was open to the assessee to raise the points of law even before the Tribunal. The learned Division Bench then referred to para-4 of the judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (Supra), which is as under: “4. The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax 12 Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.\" [Emphasis supplied] 15. In these circumstances, Bombay High Court held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not held anything contrary to what was held in the previous judgments to the effect that even if a claim is not made before the Assessing Officer, it can be made before the Appellate Authority. It was held that the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment. 16. As noticed herein-above, case of the present writ petitioner herein is clearly distinguishable on facts for the following reasons: (i) Unlike the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), petitioner had not shown any income from the long term capital gains by transfer of his land at Bokaro in the return filed in the A.Y. 2014-15 and had also not made any claim for exemption under section 54 or 54 F of the Act. In the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), assessee had made a claim for deduction of Rs. 20.00 lakhs only as against the claim of Rs. 40.00 lakhs in his return for the A.Y. 2004-05. But upon notice under section 143(2) pursuant to his case being processed on scrutiny under section 143(1), he made a claim before the Assessing Officer claiming deduction of Rs. 40.00 lakhs as against Rs. 20.00 lakhs claimed by the assessee in his return of income only for the assessment year in question. He further enclosed copy of proof of payments of SEBI fees of Rs. 40.00 lakhs. Though the Assessing Officer disallowed his claim, but the Appellate Authority entertained it. Therefore, there is clear case of absence of bonafides on the part of the petitioner herein as petitioner had made no such disclosure of his income in his I.T. Return filed for A.Y. 2014-15 and neither had he declared his assets in any of the three previous years’ returns. (ii) The writ petitioner herein unlike the Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) preferred revision application under section 264 of the Act instead of going in appeal. Before the Revisional Authority, he failed to appear even after repeated notices and further failed to explain his bonafides as to why such an income was not disclosed in his return and why should it be allowed as an exemption under section 54 or 54 F of the Act. Petitioner was not sure as to under which provisions of section 54 or 54 F is he seeking exemption. 13 (iii) The writ petitioner has thereafter invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court. In the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), wherein the order of the Appellate Authority was challenged before the I.T.A.T and thereafter, the Revenue being aggrieved by the orders of both the Appellate Authority and learned Tribunal preferred Tax Appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The scope and powers of judicial review are distinct from that of the powers exercisable under section 260-A of the Act. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been well settled in the case of Syed Yakoob versus K.S. Radhakrishnan and others [AIR 1964 SC 477]. Illuminating opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para-7 and 8 thereof are extracted hereunder: “7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a 14 writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104: (S) AIR 1955 SC 233); Nagandra Nath v. Commr. of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240: (AIR 1958 SC 398) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168. 8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; but it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious mis- interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an, error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened. 17. This Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case, noted above, finds that there is lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner. On the one hand, he has not disclosed the assets in any of the returns of three previous years to the year i.e. F.Y 2013-14 corresponding to A.Y. 2014-15. On the other hand, after his case being taken up for scrutiny, without filing the revised return, he sought to raise additional claim for exemption under section 54 F of the Act by filing calculation sheet before the Assessing Officer which was rightly denied in the light of the decision Goetze (India) Limited (Supra). He straightaway approached the Revisional Authority. Before the Revisional Authority, he failed to appear despite repeated notices. Given the limited scope of revisional 15 power, the Commissioner, Income Tax considering the grounds urged by the petitioner and upon analysis of the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer, did not find any illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the findings on the basis of the materials on record. Being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Authority, the writ petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction. 18. Upon consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon analyzing the relevant materials on record including the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Revisional Authority in the light of the decisions referred to hereinabove and relied upon by the parties, we do not find any error in law or on facts warranting interference in the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that petitioner may be allowed liberty to assail the order of penalty before the Appellate Authority under Section 246(1)(i) (B) of the Act. We may observe herein that this Court has refused to interfere in the order of the Assessing Authority and the Revisional Authority on consideration of the grounds available under the powers of judicial review. We however leave it to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority, as per the provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of penalty dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent no.3- Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, if permissible in law. It is made clear that the Appellate Authority may consider the plea of the petitioner uninfluenced by any of the observations of this Court hereinabove. 20. However, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) A.Mohanty/Ranjeet "