Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI LALIET KUMAR
O R D E R Per Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 30.11.2017.
The assessee has raised the following grounds . “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the denial of deduction claimed by the appellant u/s.80IC of the I.T.Act, 1961 of Rs.1,01,33,040/-being the income of the undertaking belonging to the appellant set up in the special category States, on the slender and unsustainable ground that the appellant had filed a revised Form 10CCB and the same could not be taken cognizance of in light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India reported in 284 ITR 323 under the facts and in the circumstances of the Page 2 of 4 appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India [supra] was inapplicable to judge the claim of the appellant since, there was no revised or fresh claim made by the appellant in course of the assessment proceedings without filing a revised return of income but, factually the appellant had only filed a revised or rectified Form 10CCB correcting the figure of turnover that was shown at an erroneous figure in the original Form 10CCB and thus, the learned CIT[A] had totally misdirected herself in law in upholding the denial of deduction claimed by the appellant on this score.
3. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the appellant had duly filed the Form 10CCB along with the original return of income and there was only an error in the figure of turnover in the original Form 10CCB since the turnover of the undertaking was shown at Rs. 5,78,87,894/- by omitting the turnover against Form F Sales and therefore, the appellant filed a rectified Form 10CCB to reflect the correct turnover of the undertaking which was Rs. 11,15,57,063/- and that the extent of deduction computed and shown in both the Forms 10CCB was one and the same of Rs. 1,01,33,040/-, which also was fully substantiated by the appellant before the authorities below by producing the details of the Form F received and hence, the deduction claimed ought to have been allowed.
4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234B and 234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled.
For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.”
The facts of this issue are that the assessee deriving income from business and other sources. He filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 92,24,410/-. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IC at Rs. 1,01,33,040/-. The assessee was asked by AO to submit the complete set of accounts and evidence relevant to this claim made by assessee. The assessee only chose to submit the revised Form 10CCB dated 30.09.2013 vide submissions dated 19.02.2016 in respect of the claim u/s. 80IC before the AO. The AO once again vide order sheet entry dated 16.02.2016
Page 3 of 4 asked the assessee why the deduction u/s. 80IC should not be revised in accordance with the original Form 10CCB and as per the details submitted and available on records for which no explanation given by assessee. The assessee submitted on 18.03.2016 stating that revised Form 10CCB filed on 19.02.2016 wherein the earlier technical defects crepted were corrected. According to the Assessing Officer the deduction u/s. 80IC cannot be revised without filing the revised return and hence the same was denied. Against this, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also rejected the claim of the assessee as the assessee has not filed any revised return to claim correct deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act. Once again assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly similar issue came before this Tribunal in assessee’s spouse case viz. Shri Manoj Kumar Pachisia Vs. ACIT in dated 01.06.2018 in which it was held as under. “4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material. Admittedly, as per the contention of the assessee, both the original as well as the revised form 10CCB were available with the AO. There is no change in the figure of deduction claimed u/s.80IC of the Act. At both place the figure of Rs.4,50,663/- remains unchanged. However the CIT (A) denied the benefit on the pretext that the revised return of income was not filed and for that the CIT (A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetz India (supra). In our view, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, do not permit the AO to entertain the revised return of income or the revised form 10CCB. However that does not withhold or prevent the CIT (A) or the Tribunal to take into account the corrected copy of the computation in form 10CCB as well as the revised return. It is the bounden duty of the CIT (A) to take a decision relying on the subsequently filed revised form 10CCB. Needful has not been done and there is no dispute that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s.80IC to the extent of Rs.4,50,663/-. However the assessee was only denied this deduction relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz (supra). As we have held that the judgment in Gotez India (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case and is not a impediment in exercising the power under the Act by the CIT (A) or the Tribunal. Therefore, in the light of the above, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s.80IC of the Act.”
Page 4 of 4 5. In view of above earlier order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to decide the above issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and direct the AO to grant deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of January, 2019.