ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner on a petition for revision filed by the assessee under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). 2. Brief facts are as under. 3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing edible oils and its byeproducts. A survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of the company on 11.10.2012. During the course of such survey, the statement of one Kailash Shah, Director of the Company was recorded, in which, he disclosed an unaccounted income of Rs.2.62 crores (rounded off) during the assessment year 2013-14. In the return of income that the company filed for the said assessment year 2013-14, the company declared a total income of Rs.3.03 crores (rounded off) which included the said income of Rs.2.62 crores disclosed during the survey. 4. While the assessment of the petitioner's return for the assessment year 2013-14 was still pending, the Assessing Officer took the petitioner's return for the assessment year 2012-13 in scrutiny. During such scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that out of a disclosure statement made by the Director of the company during the survey, in which, he had disclosed an income of Rs.2.38 crores (which forms part of the total disclosure of Rs.2.62 crores) included an amount of Rs.44.80 lakhs (rounded off) which income pertained to the period relevant to assessment year 2012-13. When this aspect was brought to the notice of the assessee, the representative of the assessee agreed to offer such income of Rs.44.80 lakhs to tax in the assessment year 2012-13. He simultaneously requested that such amount may be reduced from the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. He pointed out that nondisclosure of the income of Rs.44.80 lakhs in the assessment year 2012-13 was a mere oversight. 5. Acting on such statement of the representative of the assessee company, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 in which, he made addition of the said sum of Rs.44.80 lakhs to arrive at the assessee's total income of Rs.68.11 lakhs for the said year. 6. 5. Acting on such statement of the representative of the assessee company, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 in which, he made addition of the said sum of Rs.44.80 lakhs to arrive at the assessee's total income of Rs.68.11 lakhs for the said year. 6. When however, the question of the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 came, the Assessing Officer refused to reduce the assessee's income by a matching figure of Rs.44.80 lakhs on the ground that the assessee had not filed a revised return. 7. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax by filing a revision petition under section 264 of the Act and took up the issue of the said sum of Rs.44.80 lakhs to be taxed twice. To this extent, he challenged the order of assessment for the assessment year 2013-14. 8. During the hearing of the revision petition, the Commissioner also called for the remarks of the Assessing Officer. Such remarks were offered under a communication dated 15.03.2017, in which, the Assessing Officer conveyed as under: “2. In this connection, vide letter of even number dated 16/02/2017 the undersigned was directed to submit report on the assessee's application u/s 264 of the income Tax Act made before your honour in the above case for the Assessment Year 2013-14. In this case survey proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out on 11/10/2012 at the business premises of the company. During the course of survey, certain discrepancy was found and the assessee had voluntarily disclosed its income of Rs.2,62,25,525/- for A.Y 2013-14 in addition to regular business income. On perusal of the statement in respect of unaccounted purchases, on the basis of which the assessee had declared income of Rs.2,62,25,525/- also contained the amount of Rs.44,80,302/- which pertained to A.Y 2012-13. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings for the A.Y.2012-13, the A.R. Of the assessee vide letter dated 25/03/2015 submitted that the said income had already been offered for taxation for A.Y.2012-13 and the same should be reduced from the income of A.Y.2013-14, the said fact has been reflected in the Assessment Order of A.Y.2012-13. The amount of Rs.44,80,302/- is included in the disclosure of income of Rs.2,62,25,525/- for F.Y. 2012-13 (A.Y 2013-14) and paid on tax that. The amount of Rs.44,80,302/- is included in the disclosure of income of Rs.2,62,25,525/- for F.Y. 2012-13 (A.Y 2013-14) and paid on tax that. So, this income is taxed twice i.e. in A.Y. 2012-13 as well as in A.Y 2013-14 which is not correct. The income of Rs.44,80,302/- should be reduced from returned income of A.Y 2013-14. 4. On the examination of the records the contention of the assessee is found correct, as per Para No.05.1 of Assessing Order dated 27/03/2015 for the A.Y 2012-13 and Para No.2 & 3 of Assessing Order dated 08/01/2016 for the A.Y 2013-14.” Thus, even the Assessing Officer agreed to the petitioner's suggestion that the said sum of Rs.44.80 lakhs form part of the larger disclosure of Rs.2.62 lakhs made by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 and which sum of Rs.44.80 lakhs was shifted to the assessment year 2012-13 for taxing purpose. On the basis of such factual position, the assessee contended before the Commissioner that not reducing the assessee's income by Rs.44.80 lakhs for the assessment year 2013-14 would amount to double taxation. Same income was being taxed twice. Despite clear position as admitted by the Assessing Officer in the said communication dated 15.03.2017, the Commissioner dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground that the assessee could have filed the revised return for the assessment year 2013-14 within the stipulated time. No explanation is offered by the assessee for not filing such revised return. He was of the opinion that no provision contained in the Act permits the Assessing Officer to determine the income lower than the returned income or to accept a claim which has not been made in the original return of income for which revised return has not been filed. 9. The facts are not seriously in dispute. The Revenue does not dispute at all that the assessee's income to the extent of Rs.43.80 lakhs going by the present orders of assessment and the impugned revisional order is taxed twice. The Revenue also does not dispute that the correct year in which such income should be taxed was the assessment year 2012-13. The while claiming assessment for the said assessment year 2012-13 on the consensus of the representative of the assessee, brought such income to tax though such income formed part of the assessee's larger disclosure for the assessment year 2013-14. The while claiming assessment for the said assessment year 2012-13 on the consensus of the representative of the assessee, brought such income to tax though such income formed part of the assessee's larger disclosure for the assessment year 2013-14. In such consensus statement itself, the assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to delete such income from the assessment year 2013-14. 10. Looked from any angle, the stand of the Commissioner cannot sustain. Firstly, this would go to the very basic principle of the Revenue not allowed to take income which does not exist. The tax can be collected only on real income. It would also go against the basic principle of not taxing the same income twice. Not making deductions in the assessment year 2013-14 on the ground that the assessee had not filed revised return would also be too technical. When the assessee's return was being finalized for the assessment year 2012-13, he had offered the said income of Rs.44.80 lakhs to tax on the basis that the said income would be reduced from the return for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer could not have accepted one part of the assessee's offer while rejecting later. Consensus of the assessee was conditional viz. that the income may be taxed for the assessment year 2012-13 but must be released from consideration of the assessee's income for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer acted only one part of the offer. 11. Even the Commissioner could have in exercise of his revisional powers, corrected the injustice. Section 264 of the Act empowers the Commissioner either on his own motion or under an application by the assessee to call for any record or proceedings under the Act in which an order is passed by a subordinate authority and to make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of the Act pass such order not being an order prejudicial to the assessee as he thinks fit. Thus, the revisional powers of the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act are very wide and empowers the Commissioner to take any order of his subordinate authority into revision and further make necessary inquiry to pass such order as he thinks fit. These powers are subject to two main restrictions viz. Thus, the revisional powers of the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act are very wide and empowers the Commissioner to take any order of his subordinate authority into revision and further make necessary inquiry to pass such order as he thinks fit. These powers are subject to two main restrictions viz. that the order would be subject to the provisions of the Act and in any case, cannot be an order prejudicial to the assessee. In case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 229 ITR 383, the Supreme Court has held that there is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 264 of the Act to entertain any question for the first time so long as the relevant facts are on record. The Court referred to the judgment in case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) and noted the observations with approval that an appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have and there is no reason to justify curtailment of the power of the appellate Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. 12. Even otherwise, the question of double taxation was very much appearing before the Assessing Officer during the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14. It was this issue which the assessee had carried before the Commissioner in revision petition. Thus, this issue arose out of the order of assessment and all necessary facts to entertain such a question were any way on record. It is by now well settled that assessment proceedings are not adversarial and the Revenue can tax only the real income. 13. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 30.03.2017 of the Commissioner is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to modify the order of assessment by deleting sum of Rs.44,80,302/- from the total income of the assessee with consequential tax implication. 14. Petition is disposed of accordingly.