Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 737 - ITAT KOLKATAClaim of deduction u/s 80G - making of a new claim - Held that:- There is no factual dispute with regard to the eligibility of deduction under section 80G of the Act. The deduction benefit was denied by the AO as the assessee failed to claim the same in its original return and no revised return was filed for the same. In this backdrop of the case we find that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit for which he is entitled by the provision of the law. In view of the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court] it is evident that the making of a new claim if any before the AO is required to be done only by way of filing the revised return of income and not by way of letters or by way of filing revised computation etc. But when comes to the Tribunal or for that matter the CIT(A), who is also not the assessing officer, but who is the appellate authority, assessee does not have to initiate a new claim before them by way of filing the revised return of income. As such the returns or revised returns are filed under the provisions of section 139 of the Act and it is done before the AO and not before the first or second appellate authorities i.e. CIT(A), ITAT or Higher judiciary. Therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) is justified in entertaining and adjudicating and therefore, the ground raised by the revenue is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the ground of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Short Term Capital Loss computation - Held that:- The assessee in the instant case has sold the shares on different two dates i.e. 22.12.2008 and 2.2.2009. So it is clear that the assessee in the case on hand the assessee has sold the shares before 31.3.2009 but the AO has taken the value for the shares on the basis of balance sheet as on 31.3.2009. In our considered view the action of the AO is baseless. The AO has not brought any defect in the purchase price and sale price of the shares. The AO has made the addition on his own surmise and conjuncture. The break-up value of the share as on 31.3.2008 is of ₹ 126.93 per share which is very close the sale price of the shares i.e. ₹ 125 per share. Therefore the breakup value adopted by the AO as on 31.3.2009 is not correct value of the shares. The ld. DR failed to bring anything contrary to the findings of the ld. CIT(A). In view of above we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Hence this ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
|