TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to raise additional claims before them. Therefore, in view of this decision, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) should not have rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee made its claim not in the revised return but in the course of assessment proceedings. He should have entertained the claim even though the assessee made such claim in the course of assessment proceedings. We find that the assessing officer while allowing the claim for deduction of special discount has examined the stand of the assessee and accepted in so far as the special discount. However, he has denied the rest of the amount only on the ground that this amount, since not claimed in the revised return, the same is not allowable. In our opinion, the actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent placed before the CIT (A) is a communication by the ATE Marketing to one of the customers about the special discount to be allowed for the turnover of the year under consideration. However, the assessee had not placed anything on record to establish that M/s ATE Marketing (P) Ltd, was authorized to communicate/allow the special discount on behalf of the assessee company to the customers and nothing was placed on record to establish that it is the liability of the assessee company. Even though it was stated that the credit notes were issued regarding the additional/ special discount allowed, details of the credit notes and the actual amount allowed were not placed on record except making the claim and giving tabulated statement for the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments in support of the claim. The assessee should be given proper opportunity by the AO before deciding the issue. With these directions the issue of Ground No.1 is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. 4. Consequential assessment was made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act by the assessing officer, wherein claim of ₹ 4,75,161/- was allowed and the claim of ₹ 5,79,940/- was rejected on the ground that the assessee made this claim by way of letter in the assessment proceedings but not in the revised return or in the original return. The assessing officer placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] and denied the claim for special discount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3% to certain customers if the quantum of sales exceed ₹ 5 lakh during April 2004 to March 2005 and 5% on sales exceeding ₹ 10 lakhs. In the original return filed, the assessee has not claimed deduction of ₹ 4,75,161/-, however, revised return was filed claiming the said amount as pertaining to the year under consideration. Subsequently by a letter a further claim of additional discount of ₹ 5,29,570/- was claimed. The assessing officer denied the special discount claimed by the assessee, i.e., both the claim made in the revised return as well as claim made in the course of assessment proceedings by way of letter, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). When the matter came up before the tribunal, the tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them. Therefore, in view of this decision, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) should not have rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee made its claim not in the revised return but in the course of assessment proceedings. He should have entertained the claim even though the assessee made such claim in the course of assessment proceedings. We find that the assessing officer while allowing the claim for deduction of special discount has examined the stand of the assessee and accepted in so far as the special discount of ₹ 4,75,161/-. However, he has denied the rest of the amount only on the ground that this amount, since not claimed in the revised return, the same is not allowable. In our opinion, in view of the judgemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
