PLATINA INFRA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 246/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 January 2021AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the lower authorities' reasoning that a revised return was mandatory. It held that appellate authorities' jurisdiction to entertain new claims is not affected by the absence of a revised return.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deductions for donations under Sections 80G and 80GGB. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) denied these deductions, stating that a revised return was necessary to make such claims.

What were the issues?

Whether a revised return is mandatory for claiming deductions for donations before the Assessing Officer or appellate authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 80GGB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER BENCH :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2014-15 arises from the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad’s order dated 23-11-2017 passed in case No.0439/ 2016-17/ DCIT, Cir.16(2) / CIT(A)-4 / Hyd / 17-18, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Hyderabad ("the CIT(A)") erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle-16(2), Hyderabad ("the AO") in not allowing deduction of Rs. 62,07,546 on account donation made by the Appellant.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing deduction u/s 80GGB of Rs. 62,00,000 despite the fact that all the conditions mentioned u/s 80GGB were co plied by the Appellant.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing deduction u/s.80G of Rs. 7,546 despite the fact that all the conditions mentioned u/s 80G were complied by the Appellant.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing deduction of Rs. 62,07,546 despite the fact that the necessary documents for claiming the deduction were duly filed before the learned AO.

5.

The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in not allowing deduction of donation of Rs. 62,07,546 on the ground that the additional claims / fresh claims can be made only by filing revised return of income.

6.

Without prejudice to Grounds No. 1 to 5, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in not allowing the deduction of donation of Rs. 62,07,546 by considering the claims as additional / fresh claims made before the appellate authority”.

3.

With the able assistance of both the learned representatives, we notice during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have declined the assessee’s Section 80G claim(s) for the precise reason that it had not filed a revised return claiming the said relief. They have quoted case law Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) [284 ITR 323] (SC) that Assessing Officer ought not to entertain a new claim without filing of a revised return. We find no merit in the learned lower authorities’ sole reasoning. The fact remains that their lordships have themselves made it clear in para 4 of the said decision that tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain such a new plea in absence of a revised return or for any other authority exercising appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act are not impinged upon in any manner; whatsoever. We therefore restore the assessee’s grievance(s) herein above back to the Assessing Officer for his appropriate adjudication/factual verification on merits. Needful may be done within three effective opportunities of hearing.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th January, 2021

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →