9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income filed nor has filed any revised return of income claiming the deduction u/s.54 of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s.54F of the Act, without appreciating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 824 ITR 323 (SC) held that the assessee could make claim of deduction by filing a revised return and the assessing officer cannot allow the deduction claimed by way of a letter from the assessee?. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the claim made under wrong section is inadvertent, without appreciating the fact that the assessee changed the claim of deduction from Section 54EC to Section 54 of the Act and later from Section 54 to Section 54F of the Act, which clearly shows that the change in claim of deduction is deliberate and not inadvertent?" 3. The relevant facts are in brief that the Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 31/01/2017 declaring income of INR.74,77,900/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny. During the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. After examining the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F of the Act and therefore, addition of INR.5,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at paragraph 2 above. 6. The Departmental Representative submitted that it is admitted position that the Assessee had failed to claim the deduction under Section 54F of the Act in the return of income filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-2017, and had claimed the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act by filing a letter during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had noted that in the return of income the Assessee had claimed deduction under Section 54EC of the Act which was admittedly not available to the Assessee. During the assessment proceedings the Assessee revised the claim of deduction from Section 54EC of the Act to claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act and thereafter, to the claim of deduction under Section 54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .54EC of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that due to an inadvertent mistake the claim of deduction was wrongly made u/s 54EC instead of 54F of the Act. The AO denied the claim stating that the assessee did not claim any deduction u/s.54F in the return of income. Now, the issue is whether the AO was right in denying the claim. In the instance case, there is no dispute that the assessee claimed the deduction u/s.54EC of the Act instead of claiming it u/s.54F of the Act. Therefore, it is not a case wherein the assessee failed to make any claim of deduction in the return. Rather, there was a claim of deduction of Rs.5,50,00,000/- in the return of income albeit u/s.54EC of the Act. The assessee clarified during the scrutiny proceedings that the claim pertained to Section 54F and justified the claim with relevant documents like sale agreement, deposits of the sale consideration in the capital gains account and deed for purchase of new asset within the stipulated time. Therefore, the claim of deduction was intended u/s.54F and the assessee fulfilled the necessary requirements. Under such circumstances, a mere inadvertence in mentioning a wrong section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract of aforesaid judgment reads as under: "18. In the case before us, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have held the omission to claim the deduction of Rs.40,00,000/- to be inadvertent. Both the appellate authorities held, after considering all the facts, that the assessee had inadvertently claimed a deduction of Rs.20,00,000/-paid after the end of the year in question. We see no reason to interfere with this finding. We see less reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the appellate authorities in permitting the respondent to raise this claim. That the respondent is entitled to the deduction in law is admitted and, in any event, clearly established. In the circumstances, the respondent ought not be prejudiced. 19. The orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal clearly indicate that both the appellate authorities had exercised their jurisdiction to consider the additional claim as they were entitled to in view of the various judgments on the issue, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. (supra). This is clear from the fact that these judgments have been expressly referred to in detail by the CIT(A) and by the Tribunal. 20. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs." [Emphasis supplied] 23. It is clear to us that the Supreme Court did not hold anything contrary to what was held in the previous judgments to the effect that even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
