ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI vs. SRI KALISWARI FIREWORKS (P) LTD, SIVAKASI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1900/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 March 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of the alternate claim under Section 35(1)(iv) r.w.s. 35(2) to the file of the AO. The AO is to adjudicate the claim after providing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate it.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially claimed deduction under Section 35(2AB) which was disallowed for lack of a required certificate. An alternate claim under Section 35(1)(iv) r.w.s. 35(2) was made during assessment, which was also not entertained by the AO. The CIT(A) allowed this alternate claim.

What were the issues?

Whether an alternate claim for deduction, not made in the original return, can be considered by the AO and CIT(A) when the primary claim was disallowed. The admissibility of the alternate claim for deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(2AB),Section 35(1)(iv),Section 35(2)

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, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 01.03.2018Pronounced: 01.03.2018

: Department by Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT Assessee by : Mr.V.Srikrishnan, CA सुनवाई क3 तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 01.03.2018 घोषणा क3 तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, in dated 09.05.2017 for the AY 2013-14. 2. Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.V.Srikrishnan, CA, represented on behalf of the assessee.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that in the return filed by the assessee, the assessee had made a claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB). It :- 2 -: was a submission that as the necessary certificate required for the claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB) was not provided, the claim of deduction was not allowed. The assessee by way of a written note before the AO, made an alternate claim u/s.35(1)(iv) r.w.s.35(2). It was a submission that as the claim was not made in the return, the fresh claim made u/s.35(1)(iv) was also not entertained. It was a submission that on appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim u/s.35(1)(iv) r.w.s.35(2). It was a submission that as the claim had not been made in the return, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have considered, the benefit of deduction. It was a prayer that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed.

4.

In reply, the Ld.AR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

It was a submission that there was no provision to make both the claims u/s.35(2AB) and u/s.35(1)(iv) r.w.s.35(2). It was a prayer that the alternate claim was made u/s.35(1)(iv) r.w.s.35(2) as the main claim of the assessee u/s.35(2AB) had been denied by the AO.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions.

7.

Admittedly, the assessee has made a claim u/s.35(2AB) in the return of income filed. The claim has been denied on account of the non- production of the necessary certificate/approval from DSIR. :- 3 -:

Consequently, the assessee has raised an alternate claim u/s.35(1)(iv) r.w.s.35(2). This claim has been made in the course of the assessment. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that all the facts required for making the alternate claim and verification thereof was available before the AO. This being so and this fact being undisputed, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323, the issue of the claim of deduction u/s.35(1)(iv) r.w.s.35(2) is restored to the file of the AO for adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its claim.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on March 01, 2018, at Chennai. (जॉज! माथन) (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) "या$यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

More judgments on Section 35(2AB)

All 842 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35(2AB) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →