9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. T. A. 6412/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2016 - Sh. Joginder Singh, Judicial Member And Rajendra, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam-DR For the Assessee : Shri Vijay Kothari-AR ORDER Per Rajendra, AM Challenging the order, dtd. 12. 06. 2014, of the CIT(A)-2, Mumbai the assessee has filed the present appeal. The effective ground of appeal is about denial of deduction of ₹ 1. 42 Crores, u/s. 36(1) (viii)of the Act. Brief Facts : 2. Assessee-bank filed its return of income on 28. 09. 2011, declaring income of ₹ 24. 91 Crores. As per the acknowledgement generated, on return electronically transmitted, the income was same. Central Processing Center (CPC)vide its intimation issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 92 crores, that CPC, Bangalore processed the return on that basis, that assessee thereafter had sought a rectification in the figure and had requested to take the figure at ₹ 24, 91, 05, 826/- as against the figure of ₹ 26. 92 crores, shown in the original return, that such a change in data was not accepted because it did not match with the other relevant data already filed for the purpose of arriving at the net profit from the business/profession, that a perusal of the columns of the e-return revealed that there was no specific claim made u/s. 36(1)(viii), that no deduction was claimed in the relevant columns for an amount of ₹ 1. 42 crores to match the claim of deduction u/s. 36(1), that the assessee had not made the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification intimation was revised and the original returned income was accepted (Pg-115-118 of the PB), he relied upon the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349ITR336), of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Departmental Representative(DR)argued that the assessee had not filed a revised return for the new claim, that the AO had rightly negated the claim. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had filed e-return and later on submitted an application to rectify the mistake, that the assessee had claimed that it was entitled to deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act, that the AO and the FAA rejected the claim made by the assessee, that in the AY 2012-13, in si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent procedure. Leaving the discussion behind, we would like to hold that the stand taken by the FAA cannot be endorsed. As an appellate authority and a senior officer of the department it is expected of him to ensure that justice is done to both the sides-to the State and the Subject. In the matter of Pruthvi Brokers(supra)the Hon ble Bombay High Court has held as under: An assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion to permit such additional claims to be raised. The appellate authorities have jurisdiction to deal not merely with additional grounds, which became availabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
