MAITHAN ALLOYS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 29/11/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the lower authorities erred in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80M of the Act towards inter-corporate dividends at Rs.19,48,050/-.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the Income Tax Return (ITR) originally filed as well as subsequently revised, the assessee did not make the claim of deduction u/s 80M of the Act for inter-corporate dividend. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, this claim was raised and on the strength of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [1998]
2 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Maithan Alloys Limited 229 ITR 383 (SC) ld. Assessing Officer accepted the application entertaining the claim but on merits denied the claim on the ground that the assessee did not raise the claim in its return of income. Subsequently, the assessee did not get any favour from the ld. CIT(A).
Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of International Tractors Ltd. [2021] 435 ITR 85 (Delhi) as well as Article 265 of the Constitution of India and also referring to other decisions stated that only legitimate tax can be recovered and even a concession by a tax- payer does not give authority to the tax collector to recover more than what is due from him under the law. He also submitted that the deduction u/s 80M of the Act was newly introduced in the Finance Act, 2020 applicable from Assessment Year 2021-22 and the assessee inadvertently missed the claim of deduction. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities and again asserted the fact that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Assessing Officer does not have the power to entertain the claim made otherwise than through original/revised return.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us.
The assessee is aggrieved with the order of the lower authorities for not allowing the deduction u/s 80M of the Act at Rs.19,48,050/- claimed on account of inter-corporate dividend. Admittedly, Section 80M of the Act has been introduced by Finance Act, 2020, applicable
3 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Maithan Alloys Limited from Assessment Year 2021-22. It is also an uncontroverted fact that the assessee did not make the claim in the original as well as revised return. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, this claim has been made. Though the ld. D/R has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), as per which the Assessing Officer cannot entertain the claim otherwise than made by way of a revised return, however, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC), appellate authorities have plenary powers to admit a new claim which is necessary to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of International Tractors Ltd. [2021] 435 ITR 85 (Delhi), on observing the fact that claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act was not made in the ITR but was made during the course of scrutiny proceedings, though not allowed by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) but the Tribunal admitted the claim and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer, the Hon’ble Court confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal by observing that the Appellate Authorities are empowered to entertain the claim.
Respectfully following the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of International Tractors Ltd. (supra) and also considering the fact that this was the first year of claiming deduction u/s 80M of the Act and the assessee made this claim even before he Assessing Officer also. We, therefore, admit this claim made u/s 80M of the Act and restore the matter to the file of ld. Assessing Officer who shall firstly verify that the original return has been filed within the 4 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Maithan Alloys Limited prescribed time limit provided u/s 139(1) of the Act and then check the correctness of the claim made u/s 80M of the Act for which assessee shall file necessary documents on being provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 28th February, 2024 at Kolkata. (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 28/02/2024 *SC SrPs आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Assessee
""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाई/ Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
