2015 (10) TMI 1410 - AT - Income Tax

Enhanced claim of deduction under section 10A - CIT(A) allowed at 100 per cent. against 50 per cent. claimed by the assessee - Held that - This issue is no more res integra as it has been settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. 2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein the hon ble jurisdictional High Court has considered the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court and finally concluded that even if a claim is not made before the Assessing Officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Act. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the correctness of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the deduction claim under section 10A.

Analysis:
The Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated April 30, 2013, concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The main grievance was that the Commissioner erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's enhanced claim of deduction under section 10A at 100% instead of the 50% claimed by the assessee. The key issue was whether the assessee was eligible for a 100% deduction under section 10A but had initially claimed only 50%.

During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted a revised computation of income claiming 100% deduction, which was denied by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) to reject the claim. The matter was then brought before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who found that the assessee was indeed eligible for 100% deduction, even though only 50% was initially claimed. Citing various decisions, the Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim at 100%.

The Revenue, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled in favor of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The High Court had clarified that even if a claim was not made before the Assessing Officer, it could be raised before the appellate authorities. The Tribunal, following the High Court's ruling, declined to interfere with the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim of deduction under section 10A at 100%. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court, emphasizing the appellate authorities' jurisdiction to entertain such claims even if not raised before the Assessing Officer.