9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onation during the year at ₹ 2,25,72,928/- which includes ₹ 834136/- as employees contributions. Out of total donation of ₹ 2,16,65,864/- (excluding employees contribution) made by the appellant, it has added back on its own to the income disclosed in the return filed on 31.10.2005 and claimed deduction u/s 80G Chapter-VIA only for ₹ 45,82,932/- i.e. 50% of the contribution made by it to Tsuanami Relief Fund. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the assessing officer has not allowed deduction of political contribution u/s 80GGB of the IT Act, 1961 is found to be factually incorrect. In fact, the appellant on its own disallowed the contribution in the return of income and neither claimed as a deduction under C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion in that judgment as extracted below: The next question which arises for consideration now is as to what order should be passed in the present circumstances. In view of the findings recorded by us, ordinarily, we should direct the High Court to call for the statement of case from the Tribunal and thereupon decide the matter afresh, but this procedure would be time consuming. Since we have already discussed the correct position in law, we do not consider it necessary to follow the usual procedure. Since the view taken by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable in law, we grant leave against the order of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal under article 136 and set aside the same and remit the matter to the Income tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility. Merely because the assessee fails to claim the benefit of a set-off, it cannot relieve the Income tax Officer of his duty to apply section 24 in an appropriate case. In Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court had before it the question as to whether the assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The assessee had in that case sought to claim the deduction by way of a letter to the Assessing Officer. The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal preferred by the assessee but said as follows: 4 ..However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed the appeal on the ground that the question of error on the part of the I.T.O did not arise as no claim for exemption had been made before him. On further appeal the Tribunal took a different view. On these facts the Tribunal referred the following question to the Gujarat High Court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it was competent for the Tribunal to hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have entertained the question of relief u/s 84, and to direct the income tax officer to allow necessary relief? The Supreme Court in answering the question raised before the High Court said, inter alia, as follows: .We are not here called upon to consider a case where the assessee failed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
