DIVYADATTA DIGAMBER NAGARI SAH. PATSANSTHA LTD,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1306/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 June 2022AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not claim the deduction in its original return and did not file a revised return. Therefore, the rectification application was rightly rejected as the Assessing Officer cannot entertain an additional claim not made in the original or revised return.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154 to claim a deduction under Section 80P, which was not claimed in the original return of income. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rejected this application.

What were the issues?

Whether a deduction under Section 80P can be claimed through a rectification application under Section 154 when it was not claimed in the original return of income or a revised return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 80P,Section 143(1),Section 80A(5),Section 80AC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Kulkarni
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 25.05.2022Pronounced: 01.06.2022

ORDER

PER S. S. GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-4, Pune’s order dated 24.06.2019 passed in case no. PN/CIT(A)-4/Ward- 3, Satara/479/2017-18/188 involving proceedings u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action rejecting its section 154 rectification filed on 26.07.2017 thereby disallowing section 80P deduction claim therein Rs.34,39,055/-. The CIT(A) detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect reads as under :- “6.3 DECISION: The observations of the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. Since all the Grounds of Appeal

No. 1, 2 & 3 are inter-linked, they are taken up together. 6.3.1 The return of income was filed by the appellant on 27.09.2013 declaring an income of Rs. 34,90,055/-. Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 27.04.2014 assessing the total income at Rs. 34,39,060/- thereby raising a demand of Rs. 12,13,170/-. Subsequently, vide application u/s 154 of the Act dated 26.07.2017, the appellant requested for allowing deduction u/s 80P of the Act of Rs. 34,39,055/-. The AO, vide order u/s 154 of the Act dated 5.01.2018, rejected the application of the appellant as it had not claimed the deduction in its return of income. 6.3.2 After due consideration of the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, as also from the Intimation u/s 143(1) dated 27.04.2014 and order u/s 154 of the Act dated 5.01.2018, it is abundantly clear that the appellant did not claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act of Rs. 34,39,055/- in its return of income. It is also clear that the appellant has not bothered to file a revised return of income when it had the opportunity to do so in order to claim the deduction u/s 80P. Therefore, the AO has rightly rejected the appellant's rectification application. The appellant's case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 wherein it is held that AO does not have a power to entertain additional claim, unless such a claim is made in the revised return filed within the due date for revised return. 6.3.3 The CBDT Circular No. 689 mentioned by the appellant in its ground of appeal is pertaining to processing under the erstwhile Section 143(1)(a) of the Act whereas the appellant's case relates to Intimation u/s Section 143(1) of the Act. Further, the decisions relied upon by the appellant in his grounds of appeal and submissions can be differentiated on facts. Most of the decisions pertain to the period in which processing was there under the erstwhile Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Further, the decisions also relate to cases where scrutiny assessment was undertaken whereas in the appellant's case only Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was completed. It is also worth mentioning that the appellant has relied on the judgement in the case of Gammon India Ltd. Vs. C1T (1995) 214 ITR

50. (Bom) which is actually in favour of Revenue. 6.3.4 In light of the facts and circumstances, as above, the AO has correctly rejected the appellant's application u/s 154 of the Act since there was no mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, Ground of Appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 3, raised by the appellant, stand DISMISSED.”

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →