Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 74 - ITAT BANGALORERectification of mistake - Eligibility to claim weighted deduction @ 200% u/s 35(2AB) - assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the expenditure incurred on research & development - whether Form No.3CL is mandatory forclaiming deduction during the year under consideration? - HELD THAT:- We agree with the submissions of Ld. A.R. that the Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court, in the case of Tejas Network Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 1064 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has considered an altogether different issue and hence it was not relevant to the issue adjudicated by the Tribunal in the instant case. No merit in the submissions made by Ld. D.R. with regard to the above said case. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 20 - ITAT BANGALORE], wherein it has been clearly held that No.3CL had no legal sanctity prior to 1.7.2016. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken a view on this issue based on the case laws relied on by the assessee before it. We are not able appreciate the contentions advanced by Ld D.R for distinguishing the decision rendered in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd (supra) the law interpreted by theco-ordinate bench in the above said case has been followed in the instant case. It is a well settled proposition of law that the Tribunal is empowered to rectify the mistakes apparent from record under the powers granted to it u/s 254(2) of the Act. Tribunal cannot review its order under the garb of rectification. In the instant case, the petition filed by the revenue would make the Tribunal to review its order,which is not permitted under section 254(2) of the Act.Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the assessee. In paragraph 7 of the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessment year has been wrongly mentioned as 2014-15, whereas the Tribunal has disposed of the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14.Accordingly, we direct that the assessment year mentioned in paragraph 7 of the order of the Tribunal should be substituted by “2013-14”.
|