9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the claim of the ld. D.R that the CIT(A) ought to have restored the matter to the file of the A.O for verifying the assessee s entitlement for claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by case of International Tractors ltd. [ 2021 (4) TMI 1033 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein involving identical facts the Hon ble High Court had set-aside the order of the Tribunal that had restored the issue as regards the assessee s entitlement for deduction u/s 80JJAA to the file of the A.O. CIT(A) had allowed a legitimate claim of the assessee, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the Tribunal to have restored the matter to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication. We also find that the A.O in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 to A.Y. 2015-16 had held the assessee to be eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. We are of the considered view that as the assessee s claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA is duly substantiated by the audit report filed by a Chartered accountant in Form No.10DA along with the notes appended thereto, there would thus be no justification in restoring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 failed to furnish along with its return of income the report of the accountant as was required per the mandate of clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Sec. 80JJAA, and had furnished a report dated 27.02.2014 in Form No. 10DA r.w. Explanation to sub-section (2) of Sec. 288, vide its letter dated 04.03.2014 i.e after the due date for filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Apart from that, the A.O finding certain specific infirmities in the assessee s claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA rejected the same on merits too. The A.O after rejecting the assessee s claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA assessed its income vide his order u/s 143(3), dated 29.03.2014 at ₹ 3,76,42,810/- under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 reliefs/refunds on suo motto basis, or do so on being pointed out by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, the CIT(A) was of the view that due to mere procedural lapses or technicalities the assessee could not have been compelled to pay more tax than what was due from him. Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid observations the CIT(A) allowed the assessee s claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. 5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. It was submitted by the ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R ) that the CIT(A) instead of restoring the matter to the file of the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 observed that the matter did not merit to be restored to the file of the A.O. In support of his contention that no infirmity could be attributed to the CIT(A) in not restoring the matter to the file of the A.O, the ld. A.R had drawn support from the order of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in International Tractors Ltd. Vs. DCIT(LTU), ITA No. 35/2019, dated 07.04.2021. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that in the aforesaid case the assessee had failed to claim deduction u/s 80JJAA in its return of income. Such claim was thereafter raised in the course of the assessment proceedings and was supported by the report of a Chartered accountant in Form No. 10DA . However, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 16,33,28,492/- Nil ₹ 3,93,41,769/- 30% of the additional wages ₹ 4,89,98,547/- Nil ₹ 1,18,02,531/- Total claim of deduction for A.Y. 2010-11 ₹ 6,08,01,078/- Note No deduction was claimed in respect of new regular workmen employed in F.Y 2008-09 (corresponding to A.Y 2009-10) since the 10% criteria for increase in the regular workmen was not satisfied in the said year. Insofar the view taken by the A.O that as the assessee had neither raised a claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA in its original return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act nor by way of filing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred 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 ₹ 6,08,01,078 under Section 80JJAA of the Act in respect of the additional wages paid by the Appellant to its new regular workmen employed in FY 2007-08 and FY 2009-10. The report of a Chartered Accountant in the Form 10DA alongwith the notes 'thereto, was also filed by the Appellant with the AO in support of its claim of deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act. The said deduction remained t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 regards the grievance of the revenue, that the CIT(A) had erred in not restoring the matter to the file of the A.O and had summarily allowed the assessee s claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, we are afraid that the same does not find favour with us. As is discernible from the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
