9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Authority in accordance with law. Appellant-assessee will have the liberty to meet such contentions, including by way of urging the very grounds raised in the present Appeal on the aspect of prospectivity etc. We, therefore, clarify that we leave all such issues open for the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and thereafter, if the need be, the ITAT. Accordingly, we answer the first substantial question of law against the appellant and in favour of the respondent-Revenue. We answer the second and the third substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent- Revenue. However, for reasons indicated earlier, we refrain from answering the fourth substantial question of law, leaving the same open for the present. We set aside the judgments and orders dated 31.03.2010 and 10.03.2011, made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT respectively, insofar as they concern the issue of deductions under Section 10B of the IT Act and we restore the appellant-assessee's Appeal bearing ITA No. 158/PNJ/08-09 to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on the issue of ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned with assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-06. The appellant filed income tax returns for this assessment year declaring income of ₹ 609,37,94,550/- and revised returns declaring income of ₹ 609,31,94,550/- respectively. However, it is the case of the appellant that the appellant inadvertently omitted to make claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) in respect of two 100% of Export Oriented Undertakings referred to as Cudnem Unit and the Gadia Sodo Codli Unit , which according to them, was eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. 4. The appellant, during the assessment proceedings, filed letters dated 22.10.2008 and 01.12.2008, claiming for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act in respect of the aforesaid units. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 16.12.2008, however, refused to consider this claim for deduction, on the ground that such claim was not raised by filing the revised returns. 5. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who, called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. This remand report was furnished by the Assessing Officer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has held that when an assessee has claimed deduction after return has been filed, the assessing authority has no power to entertain such claim made otherwise than by way of revised return. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that CIT(A) is justified in not allowing the claim of deduction otherwise by then the revised return. Therefore in our opinion, learned CIT(A) is justified in his action and our interference is not required. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 9. The first substantial question of law, to a certain extent, can be said to be covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). However, according to us, both, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT have erred in relying upon Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) and holding that even the Appellate Authorities under the IT Act could not have entertained the assessee's claim for deduction, inter alia, under Section 10B of the IT Act. 10. According to us, the approach of the Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. According to us, substantial question no. (4) as framed in our order dated 25.01.2012 does not arise or in any case, is not required to be decided at the present stage. This is because neither the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nor the ITAT have adverted to the provisions of Section 80A(5) of the IT Act. There is no discussion as to whether this provision is required to be interpreted in order to have prospective effect and/or not to adversely affect vested rights existing on the date of enactment of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009. 13. Similarly, at this stage, we are really not required to go into the issue as to whether the activities undertaken by the appellant -assessee amounts to production or not, under Section 10B of the I.T. Act. 14. Both the aforesaid issues along with other issues, which may arise in the context of entitlement of the appellant/assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the I.T. Act will have to be decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which, in our opinion, has undoubted power to consider the claim for deduction in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Pruthvi Brokers (supra). 15. The circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
