FALAKNUMA PALACE TRUST.,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4)., HYDERABAD

Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in declining its deduction claim of Rs.1,03,96,762; we note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect read as follows :

Mr. Goutam vehemently reiterated the Revenue’s stand that the assessee had not claimed any such claim either in the original return or in its revised return to this effect before the assessing authority. He quotes case law Goetz (India) Limited Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that the Assessing Officer is precluded from entertaining such a claim raised otherwise than by filing of a revised return.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments as their lordships have made it clear in para 4 that the said precedent applies to powers of the assessing authority only and does not impinge upon the appellate authorities’ jurisdiction under the Act to entertain a new claim without filing the revised return.

Coupled with this, it also emerges that this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench order in Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Vs. ACIT in to 332/Hyd/2007 decided on 11.2.2011 has prima facie upheld taxability of the alleged very sum(s) paid by M/s. Indian Hotels Co. as under :

Learned department representative fails to rebut the clinching fact that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have considered the mutual contractual obligations involving assessee-trust, Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan and M/s. Indian Hotels Co., vis-à-vis the tribunal’s directions qua the rent amount and all ancillary aspects.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee's instantsole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.