Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 291 - HC - Income TaxEntitlement for deduction u/s 10B of the Act – Typographical error – Section 10B inadvertently types as 80IB of the Act – Held that:- Following Goetze (India) Limited Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court] - the assessee-company was under the bona fide belief that there was no mistake in the return, hence no revised return was filed but after knowing the clerical/computerized mistake that the claim was wrongly mentioned as u/s 80-IB instead of section 10B - since the AY 2004-05, the assessee did not have any taxable income after adjusting the unabsorbed depreciation and the tax was being paid u/s 115J and the deduction u/s 10B was being claimed in computation of income - the mentioning of section 80-IB was only clerical mistake and with all fairness as per the facts and circumstances and as per the previous claims in tax calculation u/s 115J, the assessee was legally entitled for the benefit - the spirit behind this statement must be that the assessee should have claimed the exemption in his return and filed the same within due date and the assessee clearly shows that the claim was duly made but the section was inadvertently wrongly mentioned and the fact came to the notice of the assessee at a later point of time when pointed out by the AO - the purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities was to assess the income correctly and the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. The CIT(A) had plenary power in disposing of an appeal - The scope of his power was co-terminus with that of the ITO - In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority was vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority might have in the matter - as the assessee has filed a revised computation, it holds good as except the change of section from 80-IB to 10B, all other supporting material remained the same including the audit report claiming exemption – Relying upon CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries P. Ltd. [1987 (1) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court] - where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO failed to consider the same, it was open to the appellate authority to entertain the claim. Once the assessee was found eligible for an exemption u/s 10B, it having been allowed such exemption and merely because a typographical error crept in while e-filing the return and it was mentioned as u/s 80-IB instead of section 10B, this being a technical mistake, should not come in the way by disallowing the otherwise allowable/eligible exemption – there was no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal – no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against Revenue.
|