TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2014 - SMT. DIVA SINGH AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA For The Respondent : Shri Keyur Patel, Senior DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-XVI, Delhi dated 17.12.2012. The grounds of appeal raised are reproduced as under:- 1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVI, New Delhi has erred in law and on facts in upholding the deduction ₹ 1,63,03,900/- in respect of the profit of the power plant U/s 80 IA. The action of the Learned CIT (A)-XVI is illegal and based on surmises and conjectures. 2. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of filing the revised computation of income in view of the various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. reported in [2013] 38 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi). Ld. AR submitted a copy of this order before us. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard both the sides on the issue. The main issue involved in the appeal is not allowing 80IA claim in respect of the profit of power plant by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT - 284 ITR 323. The CIT (A) has also rejected the claim of the assessee by holding that claim u/s 80IA cannot be allowed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer on three grounds that the respondent-assessee had not filed a revised return within the time allowed under Section 139(5) of the Act; dividend was received from Sun F C Mutual Fund, which was not included in the specified list of mutual funds approved by SEBI; and as the assessee was dealing with shares, income/loss from shares/units was speculative loss and not business loss. 4. CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, but on remand the matter was restored to the first appellate authority. Thereupon, vide order dated 16th February, 2009, CIT (Appeals) held that Sun F C Mutual Fund was duly approved mutual fund under Section 10(23D). He observed that dividend from the units of mutual fund was exempt under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. We do not see any reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Both the assesses as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. 7. Reference was also made to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal. 9. In CIT Vs. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 reliance placed on Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) by the Revenue was rejected, as the assessee had not made any new claim but had asked for re-computation of dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
