2018 (10) TMI 612 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80I - Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - material available on record - Held that - First of all, the facts of the case clearly show that the assessee did not make any claim for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act, for the relevant assessment year. Secondly, as pointed out by us in the preceding paragraph, while discussing about the applicability of the decision in Chokshi Metal Refinery 1976 (3) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , if the interpretation sought to be given by the assessee is to be accepted, then it would mean that the Assessing Officer should virtually sit in the office of the assessee and help the assessee file the return. The assessee has not been able to satisfy this Court that what has been pointed out in the petition dated 22.04.1996 under Section 154 of the Act, is a mistake, which is apparent from the record. It is not a mistake which could be identified by a mere look, since there was no claim made by the assessee for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act. Thus, the decision in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank 2009 (12) TMI 99 - MADRAS HIGH COURT also does not render support to the assessee. Appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Claim for deduction not made in the return of income for the assessment year.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to deduction under Section 80I
The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the claim for deduction was not allowed for the assessment year 1994-95, despite being granted for previous years. The appellant argued that the assessing officer should have considered the claim based on previous approvals. However, the court held that the appellant, being a company with financial and legal expertise, cannot claim ignorance, especially when they had made similar claims in previous years. The court emphasized that the assessing officer is not obligated to grant a deduction that was not claimed in the return of income. The court rejected the appellant's argument, citing that the decision in a similar case did not support the appellant's claim.

Issue 2: Claim not made in the return of income
The appellant also raised the issue of the claim not being made in the return of income for the assessment year in question. The appellant relied on a court decision regarding the interpretation of "mistake apparent from record." However, the court found the appellant's argument unacceptable. The court highlighted that the appellant did not make a claim for the deduction in question, and expecting the assessing officer to assist in filing the return goes beyond the statutory requirements. The court clarified that the power under Section 154 of the Act is only applicable to manifest mistakes that can be easily identified, which was not the case here. The court concluded that the reasons provided by the authorities and the tribunal for rejecting the claim were legally sound, valid, and did not warrant interference.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, ruling against them on the substantial questions of law raised. No costs were awarded in this judgment.