9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2017 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee's fresh claim before CIT(A) is entertain able even when the same is not claimed in original return of income nor the assessee had filed revised return of income to make such claim? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society established by the Government of Karnataka and registered with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Registration Act, 1959. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the exemption under Section 80P and Section 23C of the Act. It was further held that no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly dismissed the appeal of the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee is not entitled to raise an additional claim in appeal other than by way of filing the revised return of income as provided in Section 138(5) of the Act. It is further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, if it is held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal have power to entertain additional claim in appeal, the appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pographical errors in Schedule-BP. The assessee had entered 'NIL' in item No.1 instead of Rs. 2,52,18,534/-. It is further submitted that against this item, the assessee was eligible to claim exemption under Section 10 (23C)(iiib) of the Act or deduction under Section 80P of the Act and the exemption was to be filled in item No.5 of Schedule-BP. It is further submitted that the CPC while processing the return of income made an addition of Rs. 2,95,98,463/- under the head 'income from business or profession'. 5. It is also pointed out that the CPC has only considered the item in lieu of 'NIL' in item No.1 of Schedule BP and has not considered the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiib) or deduction under Section 80P, for which the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance has been placed on decisions in 'GOETZE (INIDA) LTD. VS. CIT', (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), 'SANCHIT SOFTWARE AND SOLUTIONS P. LTD. VS. CIT', (2021) 349 ITR 404 (BOM.), 'NIRMALA L. MEHTA VS. A.BALASUBRAMANIAM, CIT AND OTHERS', (2004) 269 ITR 1 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. PRUTHV BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDES LTD.', (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOMBAY), 'CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD.', (2008) 306 ITR 42 (DEL), 'CIT VS. JINDAL SAW PIPES LTD.', (2010) 328 ITR 338 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD.', (2014) 360 ITR 682 (DEL.), 'NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT', (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), 'RAJESHWARI COTTON GINNING & PRESSING INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT', (2017) 88 TAXMANN.COM 463 (K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as the assessee did not have the opportunity to raise the contention before the Assessing Officer as the order of assessment was passed by the CPC and therefore, the assessee had no opportunity to make a fresh claim by way of revised return before the CPC as the process is automated. The claim of the assessee was allowed by the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2005 06. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, we are not required to examine the validity of the claim of the assessee with regard to relief under Section 80P of the Act on merits as the substantial question of law only pertains to power of the Appellate Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
