9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the business of software solutions and I.T enabled services had e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 15.10.2010, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,76,42,809/- under the normal provisions of the Act. Further, the assessee had shown its 'book profit' u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs. 79,94,75,627/-. Initially the return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee on the basis of a letter dated 04.03.2014 had raised a claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,08,01,078/-. However, the A.O declined to admit the aforesaid claim of deduction raised by the assessee for two fold reasons, viz. (i) that as the said claim for deduction was neither raised in the original return of income nor by way of a filing of a revised return, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) the same could not be admitted; and (ii) that in support of its claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the assessee that now when the tax payer itself had made a claim in the course of the assessment proceedings, there appeared to be no reason as to why he should be restrained from doing so. Also, the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the Government can levy and collect those taxes and only that much taxes that are provided in law. As such, it was the claim of the assessee that the department should collect the due taxes, and in determining the same remained duty bound to allow legitimate deductions and reliefs as were provided in the Act, though the same had not been claimed by the assessee. It was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee had rebutted the point wise observations of the A.O that the various condition stipulated in Sec. 80JJAA had not been satisfied by the assessee. It was further observed by him that the assessee had drawn support from the fact that on similar facts the assessee's claim for deduction as was raised in its return of income was allowed by the A.O while framing the assessments for A.Y. 2012-13, A.Y 2013-14, A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16. Observing, that the A.O was bound to assess the correct income and for the said purpose may grant r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid claim of deduction raised by the assessee was qua the additional wages that were paid by the assessee to its new regular workmen who were employed in F.Y. 2007-08 and F.Y. 2009-10, as well as during the year under consideration. It was averred by the ld. A.R that as there was no change in the facts or the legal position qua the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA, which was even allowed in the subsequent years, therefore, there was no valid reason for declining the same during the year in question. In support of his contention that following the rule of consistency the aforesaid claim of deduction was rightly allowed by the CIT(A), the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DIT (IT) vs. HSBC Assets Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 228 taxman 365 (Bom) (Mag). It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that as the complete facts qua the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA were there before the A.O in the 'audit report' of the Chartered accountant in 'Form No. 10DA', therefore, the CIT(A) in all fairness had rightly obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. As observed by us hereinabove, for the reason, that the assessee had neither raised the claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA in its original return of income nor by way of filing of a revised return, the A.O, therefore, had declined to take cognizance of the same as was raised on the basis of a letter dated 04.03.2014 that was filed by the assessee along with the 'audit report' of a Chartered accountant in 'Form No. 10DA'. As is discernible from the records, the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA of Rs. 6,08,01,078/- was comprised of as under: New regular workmen pertaining to Particulars F.Y.2007-08 (ie. AY. 2008-09) F.Y.2008-09 (ie. AY. 2009-10) F.Y.2009-10 (ie. AY. 2010-11) No. of new regular workmen employed which are entitled for deduction 1033 Refer note 249 Additional wages paid to such new regular workmen Rs. 16,33,28,492/- Nil Rs. 3,93,41,769/- 30% of the additional wages Rs. 4,89,98,547/- Nil Rs. 1,18,02,531/- Total claim of deduction for A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 6,08,01,078/- Note - No deduction was claimed in respect of new regular workmen employed in F.Y 2008-09 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) had rightly admitted the claim for deduction that was raised by the assessee u/s 80JJAA of the Act. 8. We shall now advert to the grievance of the revenue that the CIT(A) had erred in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA, and instead of restoring the matter to the file of the A.O for verifying the assessee's entitlement for deduction under the said statutory provision had most arbitrarily summarily allowed the same. Before proceeding any further, we think it apt to refer to the observations of the CIT(A) on the basis of which he had allowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, which read as under: "Ground 4: claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. I have perused the records and gone through the facts of the case. I find that the issue raised in this ground pertains to allowability of deduction u/s. 80J JAA of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Appellant claimed deduction of Rs. 6,08,01,078 under Section 80JJAA of the Act in respect of the additional wages paid by the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebuttal of the same and they have also relied on the fact that on similar facts when appellant company claim said deduction while filing return, they were found eligible and granted 80JJAA deduction in AY 2012-13, 2013-14,2014-15 & 2015-16. There are various judicial pronouncements favouring contention of appellant. Reliance is placed on following decisions: "1) M/s Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 3808 of 2010) Bombay HC 2) Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT (187ITR 688) SC 3) CIT v. Ramco International (221 CTR 491 )(Punjab& Haryana HC) 4) Emerson Network Power Ind (27 SOT 593)(Mumbai Tribunal) 5) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd v. DCIT (15 SOT 252))(Mumbai Tribunal" In view of the above discussion I hold that the AO is bound to assess the correct income and for this purpose, the AO may grant reliefs / refunds suomoto or can do so on being pointed out by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. In, my opinion due to mere procedural lapse or technicalities, appellant should not be compelled to pay more tax than what is due from them, accordingly AO is directed to allow deduction u/s 80JJAA This ground of appeal is thus allowed." 9. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
