TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the original return of income filed by the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has not made any claim u/s 80IB in respect of the first unit in the revised return of income filed by the assessee. (2) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's aforesaid claim of deduction which was withdrawn by it in the revised return without appreciating the fact that once the original return is revised u/s 139(5) then the claim made in original return of income cannot be entertained by the AO., as also held in the cases of (i) Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 156, 164 (Karn) (ii) Arun Textiles C (1991) 192 ITR 700, 708 (Guj) and (iii) Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). In fact, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derived from manufacturing or processing. Further there were procedural defects like incorrect certificate. When deduction u/s 10B was refused by the AO the assessee sought to claim deduction u/s 80IB.in respect of Parkin Industry which is a separate unit of the assessee company. The claim was rejected on the ground that certificate of the auditor in form 10 CCB was not submitted along with return which finally submitted on 29.3.2006 and it was also observed that assessee has purchased old plant and machinery and building for this unit. The AO noticed that investment in this unit was of ₹ 1.19 crores whereas deduction under section 80IB (3)(ii) could be allowed to a small scale industry having investment in plant and machinery of les ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the facts of the case, I direct the AO to consider this claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of first unit for which claim of deduction amounting to ₹ 1,14,13,650/- was made in the original return and allow the claim as per provisions of law. 4. Against this, ld. DR submitted that claim can be made only in the original return and if that claim is not made in the revised return then such claim could not be entertained. The department referred to following judgments:- (i) Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 156, 164 (Karn) (ii) Arun Textiles C (1991) 192 ITR 700, 708 (Guj) (iii) Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). (iv) ITAT Bench 'C' Ahmedabad in the case of Infini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at High Court in CIT vs. Arun Textiles 'C (supra) is only for the proposition that ITO is not bound to allow deduction if it is withdrawn in the revised return. This judgment was affirmed by Hon. Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mahendra Mills (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC) by observing that if particulars required for allowance of depreciation are not furnished then depreciation cannot be granted. In CIT vs. Manglore Chemicals Fertilizers (supra) it has been held that once revised return is filed then original return effaced for all purposes under Income-tax Act. In Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) it is held that if claim is not made in a valid revised return then there is no power on the AO to entertain the claim. It was, however, made clear by Hon. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
