9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 502 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80GGB - donation made by the assessee to the political parties - claim made first time before the CIT(A) - Power of appellate authority - Held that - The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the assessee made donation to political parties. In the return filed by the assessee this was not claimed as a deduction. There is no conflict between the Gurjargravures Private Ltd. (1977 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court) and Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court ). In the former a claim for exemption was for the first time put up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who rejected the claim as not made before the I.T.O. This rejection was set aside by the Tribunal with direction upon the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain the question of relief under section 84, claimed by the assessee in that case. The Supreme Court held that it was not competent for the Tribunal to have done so. The distinction between the two authorities eliminating any conflict is that in Gurjargravures Private Ltd. (supra) the competence of the Tribunal to direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain a claim not made before the I.T.O was found to be lacking. In Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court held that the assessing Authority s power was limited but not that of the Tribunal in the context of dealing with a claim of the assessee therein not put forward before the Assessing Officer. In Gurjargravures Private Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal itself did not consider to allow the claim for relief. - Decided in favour of the assessee
Issues:
- Deduction under section 80GGB for donations made to political parties Analysis: The High Court of Calcutta heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deduction under section 80GGB for donations made by the assessee to political parties. The assessee had made a donation to political parties but did not claim it as a deduction in the return filed. The CIT(A) found that the appellant had not claimed the deduction in the return or during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, citing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, which directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction under section 80GGB for the donations made to political parties, following the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. The Tribunal's decision was based on the power granted to it by the Supreme Court to direct the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of the assessee, even if not originally claimed in the return. The appellant's counsel relied on various Supreme Court judgments to support their arguments. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to consider the merits of the deduction permitted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The counsel also cited the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Gurjargravures Private Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal could not direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain a claim not made before the Income Tax Officer. However, the counsel argued that the later judgment in Goetze (India) Ltd. clarified the power of the Tribunal in dealing with claims not put forward before the Assessing Officer. The High Court analyzed the facts of the case in comparison to the judgments cited by both parties. It highlighted that the power of the Tribunal to consider claims not made before the Assessing Officer was affirmed in Goetze (India) Ltd., distinguishing it from the case of Gurjargravures Private Ltd. The Court concluded that the Tribunal had the authority to direct the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction under section 80GGB for the donations made to political parties, in line with the principles established by the Supreme Court. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, ruling in favor of the assessee.
|
