TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by presuming that the claim was u/s 10B. We have also noticed that the deduction u/s 10B of the Act is no longer available while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessing officer has taken the support of decision rendered in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd.[2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court] We notice that the Ld A.R has rightly pointed out that the AO was not correct in referring to that decision in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, it is a mistake very much glaring and obvious and hence requires rectification. It is also settled proposition that income tax cannot be collected without the authority of law. Thus we are of the view that there is merit in the rectification petition filed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee filed a revised return of income (post merger) on 17.03.2009. In the revised return of income, the assessee declared its Total income at NIL after claiming deduction of ₹ 329.65 lakhs u/s 10B of the Act. 3. With regard to the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, the assessee computed the same at NIL after claiming deduction of profit of 10B unit under clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB. However, the assessee also added following note to the Statement of total income:- As the unit is Located in SEZ, no Tax on Book Profit is chargeable as per sec.115JB(6) of Income tax Act. 4. It is pertinent to note that the AO had rejected the claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act in the earlier years, but th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only by filing revised return of income as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). Accordingly he rejected the petition filed by the assessee. 6. The Ld CIT(A) also rejected the appeal filed by the assessee on the reasoning that (a) the assessee itself admitted that the exemption claimed u/s 10B would not be available while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. (b) the question of allowability of exemption u/s 10B involved lots of interpretation of facts and law, therefore it cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from the record. Further the matter is still pending for adjudication before appellate authorities and it has not reached any finality. Aggrieved by the order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Metal Refinery Vs. CIT (1977)(107 ITR 63)(Guj). 9. The Ld A.R further submitted that there is no estoppel against law and hence the tax authorities should not have rejected the rectification petition of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee itself has accepted the liability u/s 115JB of the Act. In support of this proposition, the ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalidas Dhajibhat Vs. The State of Bombay ((s) AIR 1955 SC 62 (vol 42 CN 15). He submitted that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT has held as under in the case of Steelfab Engineering Corpn (India) Vs. ACIT (2012)(54 SOT 79):- 28. It is quite settled proposition that any claim for deduction under Income tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nirmala L Mehta Vs. A Balasubramaniam, CIT (269 ITR 1). 12. On the contrary, the ld D.R strongly supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the assessing officer has rejected the rectification filed by the assessee only on the reasoning that the assessee itself has withdrawn the deduction and further fresh claims can be made only by way of filing revised return of income. The Ld CIT(A), as pointed out by Ld A.R., has misdirected himself by referring to deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Act while the claim of the assessee in the rectification petition was for deduction u/s 115JB(6) of the Act. However a perusal of the Statement of total income of the assessee would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer has failed to bring to the notice of the assessee. When the assessee has realised its mistake, it has filed the impugned rectification petition. Thus, the error pointed by the assessee is very much glaring and obvious. Hence the same requires rectification u/s 154 of the Act as held by Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation (supra). 16. We have noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has taken the view that the issue of deduction u/s 10B is debatable in nature and hence the same falls outside the scope of sec. 154 of the Act. We have earlier noticed that the claim of the assessee related to sec. 115JB(6) of the Act and the ld CIT(A) has misdirected himself in this regard by presuming that the claim wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
