9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 74 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - Eligibility to claim weighted deduction @ 200% u/s 35(2AB) - assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the expenditure incurred on research development - whether Form No.3CL is mandatory forclaiming deduction during the year under consideration? - HELD THAT - We agree with the submissions of Ld. A.R. that the Hon ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court, in the case of Tejas Network Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 1064 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has considered an altogether different issue and hence it was not relevant to the issue adjudicated by the Tribunal in the instant case. No merit in the submissions made by Ld. D.R. with regard to the above said case. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. 2019 (1) TMI 20 - ITAT BANGALORE , wherein it has been clearly held that No.3CL had no legal sanctity prior to 1.7.2016. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken a view on this issue based on the case laws relied on by the assessee before it. We are not able appreciate the contentions advanced by Ld D.R for distinguishing the decision rendered in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd (supra) the law interpreted by theco-ordinate bench in the above said case has been followed in the instant case. It is a well settled proposition of law that the Tribunal is empowered to rectify the mistakes apparent from record under the powers granted to it u/s 254(2) of the Act. Tribunal cannot review its order under the garb of rectification. In the instant case, the petition filed by the revenue would make the Tribunal to review its order,which is not permitted under section 254(2) of the Act.Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the assessee. In paragraph 7 of the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessment year has been wrongly mentioned as 2014-15, whereas the Tribunal has disposed of the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14.Accordingly, we direct that the assessment year mentioned in paragraph 7 of the order of the Tribunal should be substituted by 2013-14 .
Issues:
Eligibility of the assessee to claim weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on Form No.3CL; Consideration of the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in a similar case; Distinction between the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. and the present case regarding the submission of Form No.3CL; Tribunal's consideration of whether Form No.3CL is mandatory for claiming deduction during the relevant assessment year; Typographical error in mentioning the assessment year in the Tribunal's order. Analysis: The revenue filed a miscellaneous application citing a mistake apparent from the record in the order related to the eligibility of the assessee to claim weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had allowed the claim for deduction of a certain amount, contrary to the revenue's contention based on the Form No.3CL issued by DSIR, New Delhi. The revenue argued that the Tribunal overlooked a decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court, emphasizing the binding nature of the prescribed certificate in Form No.3CL for claiming deductions. The revenue also pointed out a distinction between the present case and the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd., urging a recall of the order. The Tribunal, however, held that the decision in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. was correctly followed, emphasizing that Form No.3CL had no legal sanctity before a certain date and that the Tribunal's decision was based on relevant case laws. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contentions, stating that the issue considered was different from the one in the case cited by the revenue. The Tribunal clarified the relevance of Form No.3CL for claiming deductions during the relevant assessment year and upheld its decision based on the legal interpretation provided in the Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. case. Moreover, the Tribunal addressed a typographical error in mentioning the assessment year in its order and corrected it accordingly. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's miscellaneous application, highlighting that rectification of mistakes apparent from the record is permissible under the law, but a review of the order is not allowed. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue's petition aimed at reviewing the order, which was not within the scope of rectification under the relevant section of the Act. The order was pronounced on 1st Feb, 2021.
|
