TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d return declaring total income of ` 2,21,64,580/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was inter alia, observed by the A.O. that the assessee filed re-revised return on 22.12.2008 declaring total income of ` 99,83,119/-. The reason for re-revising return is stated to be that due to an inadvertent mistake, the assessee has claimed in the revised return, the short term capital gain instead of claiming long term capital gain in respect of shares of demerged company namely MRIL. However, the A.O. was of the view the re-revised return is non-est as the same was filed beyond one year time from the end of the relevant assessment year. The A.O. while relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (India) Ltd. (supra), relied on the following decisions:- 1. Mahindra Mills vs. ACIT 99 ITR 135,143 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. 198 ITR 297,320 (SC) 3. Good Year India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana 188 ITR 402,428 (SC) 4. CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Mitilal Halwasia Trust 195 ITR 825, 832 (Cal.) 5. Murali Export House vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 (Cal) 6. Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) 7. A.V. Sreenivasala Naidu vs. CIT 16 ITR 314 (Mad) 8. Dhanukaur vs. State of Rajasthan 120 ITR 158 (Raj.) 9. CIT vs. Aarchana R. Dhanwantay [1982] 136 ITR 355, 360 (Bom.) 10. Board Circular [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mum.) Chicago Pneumatics India Ltd. Vs. DCIT page Nos. 32-59 of the paper book. 11. L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of the assessee in view of the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). 7. In Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mum), it has been observed and held by the Tribunal (page 274):- As far as the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute that the same is binding on everybody concerned. In the said decision, the Hon ble Apex Court has also ruled that Appellate Tribunal may adjudicate the issue if a claim is made by any party subject to satisfaction of prescribed rules, hence, even the Hon ble Apex Court has not barred the assessee raise it s legal claim before Appellate authorities.... 8. In CIT Vs. Jai Prabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TR 383(SC) it has been observed by Their Lordships (page 386) :- The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, we do not see reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item 12. In view of the above settled position of law and in the absence of any other contrary material or distinguishing feature brought on record by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
