CIT vs. CARLTON OVERSEAS PVT LTD

f' I #2 o/o 2O.O5.2OLL Present: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. for the Revenue' +CM No.L4L2l2011 * For the reasons stated in this application, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disPosed of. ITA No.74612O1L For the assessment year 200L-02, the assessee had filed the return declaring its income at T26,82,3701-. Thereafter, this return was revised declaring income at <L7,30,2901-. The reason for revising thb return was that the assessee wanted to claim deduction under Section 80HHC as well as Section B0-lB of the Income Tax Act, independent of each other. The assessment was carried out under Section 143(3) of the Act and the deductions as claimed were allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO). However thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on the premise that deduction under Section BOHHC of the Act was wrongly computed which should have been after revising the deduction which was allowed to the assessee under Section B0-lB of the Act having regard to the provisions of Section B0-lA(9) of the Act. The clT (A) quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated bythe AO under Section 148 of the Act on the ground thatthis ".. issue was specifically considered by the AO while granting the benefit ft Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

-. > f in the m.anner claimed by the assessee under Section SOHHC of the Act and the case is merely a change of opinion and it could not permit the AO to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A), which is'relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Carlton Overseas Pvt, Ltd, Vs, lncome Tax Officer & Ors. (in WP(C) No.9180/2007 decided on 18.08.2009) whereby the notice under Section I48 of the Act by the AO was quashed, which was issued for identical reason, viz., permissibility of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. We have gone through the orders of the CIT (A) wherein CIT (A) has specifica'lly mentioned that when the revised return was filed, the AO raised a specific query with regard to reasons for revising the return. In reply, the assessee had submitted three pages note along with the detailed calculation arriving at deduction under Section B0-lB and Section B0HHC of the Act independently which was given to the original and revised returns and verified by the AO. lt would, thus, clear that the AO had specifically gone into the issue and on that basis given the benefits. We are, thus, of the opinion that no question This appeal is accordingly dismissed. of law arises. tl -€-.t<-,{"-\, MAY 20,2OLL pmc M.L. MEHTA, J.