9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80A(5) of the Act. The assessee s arguments in assessment year 2014-15 stands rejected on the very analogy by adopting stricter interpretation as accepting such an argument would indeed lead to frustration of the said specific statutory embargo. The legal position would hardly be any different for the latter assessment year 2015-16 as well wherein the assessee s revised return could not have been accepted u/s.139(5) of the Act in light of hon ble apex court s landmark decision in PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [ 2022 (7) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT] settling the issue in department s favour. A revised return could be filed only if there is an omission or a wrong statement but a claim which was not earlier raised could not be raised at a latter stage. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cir.7, Pune/10572/2016-17 and No.PN/CIT(A)-5/DCIT, Cir.7, Pune/10219/2017-18 respectively, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2. We straightaway make it clear at the outset that these assessees twin case had been kept as part-heard on 06.02.2023 to examine the first and foremost preliminary issue of allowability of its sec.80IA deduction claim(s) of Rs.1,82,94,725/- and Rs.4,87,32,327/-, assessment year-wise, respectively for want of a valid return filed so as to comply with the rigor of sec.80A(5) r.w.s.80AC of the Act. 3. Learned counsel has filed not only detailed written submissions running into 32 pages but also a chart explaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.790/Kol./2014 (Kolkata-Trib.). 3.1. The assessee s case in light of the above cited case law is that first of all the CIT(A) has already decided the instant issue in assessee s favour and against the department wherein the latter has neither filed a cross-appeal or cross-objection, as the case may be and, therefore, it could hardly be put in a worse position as per no reformatio in peius .And that hon ble apex court has already diluted the stricter interpretation principle in such a deduction provision as held in Government of Kerala vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent (supra). Learned counsel further quoted hon ble apex court s landmark decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. hereinabove that the pre-condition of claiming a fresh relief by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready rejected this sec.80IA deduction claim on merits, the assessee s belated claims herein had been held to be not maintainable without prejudice to the same. Mr. Jasnani further quoted Rule 27 of I T Rules as well that he can also raise an altogether new argument so as to confirm the CIT(A)'s findings as per BR Bamasi vs. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 223 (Bom.) (HC). He lastly quoted this tribunal s inherent jurisdiction u/s.254(1) of the Act comprising of the clinching statutory expression may pass any order thereupon as it thinks fit in widest terms as held in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB)and CIT vs. Gilbert Barker Manufacturing [1978] 111 ITR 529 (Bom.). 5. We start with the admitted factual posi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur thoughtful consideration to the instant issue as well as vehement rival stands and see no reason to accept the assessee s arguments. We first of all quote hon ble jurisdictional high court s decision [2019] 107 taxmann.com 220 (Bom.) EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India that filing of the return for claiming the impugned deduction is a mandatory condition u/s.80A(5) of the Act. The assessee s arguments in assessment year 2014-15 stands rejected on the very analogy by adopting stricter interpretation as accepting such an argument would indeed lead to frustration of the said specific statutory embargo. The legal position would hardly be any different for the latter assessment year 2015-16 as well wherein the assessee s revised return could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 10B(8) and furnishing the declaration as required under section 10B(8) in the revised return of income which was much after the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act, cannot mean that the assessee has complied with the condition of furnishing the declaration before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, for claiming the benefit under section 10B(8), both the conditions of furnishing the declaration and to file the same before the due date of filing the original return of income are mandatory in nature. 5.4. Learned counsel could hardly dispute in that the assessee s original return filed u/s.139(1) had not raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
