9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o above the learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing proportional deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) considering the Trading account submitted by Samiti for transactions of sales and purchase with the members and non members of the society before the ITO Jalore. 4. That the order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law as the Trading account for transactions of sales and purchase with the members non-members of the Society submitted before the learned ITO Jalore was not considered by him while passing the impugned order. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the under section 80P(2)(d) on the ground that the deduction was claimed for the first time before him and was not raised before the AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dertaken by the assessee being similar. The decision of the CIT (A) for AY 04-05 on the issue relating to allowability of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) & 80P(2)(a)(iv) therefore, holds good for the instant appeal. The appellant had further furnished separate details of trading done with the members of society and with non-member public under the instruction and direction of the Government and has contended that in the circumstances when separate profit / trading details are available so as to determine the profit from the activities covered u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) & 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the I. T. Act hence, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) is allowable during the year under appeal. However, I find that such bifurcation of trading is not possible in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had not claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in the return of income. The appellant cannot be allowed to raise such claim for the first time during the appellate proceeding having failed to make such claim in the return of income or before the Assessing Officer. It is settled that if the matter was never contested on a particular issue before the lower authority, no grounds can legitimately be raised before the appellate authority (Punjab Feed Mills vs. ITO 228 ITR 386 (P&H) and the first appellate authority can correct any decision of ITO, so long as he does not travel outside the matters considered and determined by the ITO (CIT vs. Karamchand Premchand (P) Ltd. 74 ITR 254, 261 (Guj). From these directions, it is clear that such matter not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the impugned order. But in the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) has categorically found after examining the material produced by the assessee before him that the chart showing bi-furcation of income activities covered u/s80P(2)9a)(iii) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) were not produced before the assessing officer. Therefore, he dismissed the issues raised by the assessee. This act of the Ld. CIT(A) is not permissible under law. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issues are required to be denovo considered by the assessing officer with reference to the chart showing bi-furcation of income from activities covered u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) produced before the Learned CIT(A) and thereby pass necessary consequential order, of course b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
