9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above decision of the Hon ble High Court, we admit the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act subject to verification by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for examining of the documents in support of claim u/s 80GGA and if the claim is found in accordance with law same may be allowed. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 242/MUM/2022 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2022 - Shri Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) And Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. Suyog Bhave, AR For the Revenue : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of donations of INR 9,00,000 made to M/s. Sahara Health Education Society under Section 80GGAof the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Relief 3.1. The Appellant prays that the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the return of income filed, the assessee claimed deduction of ₹9,00,000/- u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). However, during the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had paid donation of ₹9,00,000/- to M/s Sahara Health and Education Society, who issued donation receipt u/s 35AC of the Act to the assessee. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectfully following the rulings of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Paragon Biomedical India (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., I am of the considered opinion that, in the instant case, as a CIT(A), I do not have power to entertain the assessee's alternative claim of deduction u/s. 80GGA of the Act. Accordingly, I do not want to interfere with the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs.8,13,876/- (9,00,000 - 86,124). Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders, (201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of three learned Judges in National Thermal Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 229 ITR 383 (SC). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore, was not before the appellate authorities. The deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make an amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited, (2008) 306 ITR 42. The Division Bench, in paragraph 17 of the judgment held that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal making it clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. In paragraph 19, the Division Bench held that there was no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
