TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT, D.R ORDER Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-I, Chennai dated 29.12.2015 pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grievance of the assessee is with regard to non-granting of deduction u/s.80-IB of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 admitting total income of ₹ 3,63,39,110/-. In the return of income, the assessee had not made any claim with reference to deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act. However, the same was claimed at the stage of assessment by filing details of project carried out by the assessee and the entitlement of sec. 80-IB(10) deduction along with the Form-10CCB. The AO overlooked the claim of assessee and denied the deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act. The assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the same by observing that:- 5. At the appellate stage, these facts have been disputed. The appellant has relied upon me case of CIT vs. Ramco lnternational (332 ITR 306) (P H) (HC) to press it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y it. In the case of Additional CIT vs. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd (111 ITR 1). the Supreme Court has held that the claim for exemption not made before the ITO and when there was no material on record to support such claim, the AO cannot entertain such claim in appellate proceedings. Similarly, it has been held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GS Rice Mills (136 ITR 761). Taking the sum totality of the facts before me into a account, I Find the plea of the appellant devoid of merits and hence rejected. The ground of appeal is dismissed. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The main contention of the ld.A.R is that the assessee is legally entitled for deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee had not made the claim in the return of income inadvertently and omitted to fill the claim of deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act in the column for Chapter- VIA deduction. The non-filing of the particular form cannot go against the assessee and the entitlement of deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act cannot be denied by the Department and hence, ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he may be sure of getting a square deal from the Department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessee on whom it is imposed by law, officers should :- (a) Draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other; (b) Freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. The intention of this circular is not that tax due should not be charged or that any favour should be shown to anybody in the matter of assessment, or that where investigations are called for, they should not be made. Whatever the legitimate tax it must be assessed and must be collected. The purpose of this circular is merely to emphasise that we should not take advantage of an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax out of him than is legitimately due from him. The above circular has been judicially noted and approved in many judgments and has been relied upon in support of the assessees' claim. 5.4. In Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and to have been substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 5.7 In the case of CIT v. Jai Parbolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) wherein held that the assessee claimed 1/5th of expenditure on account of customer introduction charges in the return of income and treated the balance as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessing officer allowed the claim. In appeal before the CIT(A), by way of additional ground of appeal, the assessee claimed the entire expenditure as allowable deduction. The CIT(A) allowed the claim. The ITAT, in appeal by the department, restored the issue to the assessing officer to consider and decide the issue after examining the details. The assessing officer, in the fresh order did not allow the claim on the ground that it was not made in the return. Both the CIT(A) and the ITAT held that the claim was allowable and allowed the same. 5.8 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deal with the issue and was entitled to determine the claim of loss, if at all, under one section/provision or the other. 6.3 In the case of CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., [2010] 328 ITR 338 (Delhi) wherein held that decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was relied upon by the Revenue but the contention was not accepted, observing that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is comprehensive and assimilates issues in the appeal from the order of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal has the discretion to allow a new ground to be raised. 6.4 In the case of Universal Subscription Agency (Pvt.) Ltd. v. JCIT I 59 Taxmann 64 (All.) wherein held that it was held that the decision of the Apex Court in Goetze's case has not laid down as a matter of law that there is a bar for the assessing officer to entertain the claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. 6.5 In the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) wherein held that The assessee filed a ROI in which it omitted to make a claim for payment of SEBI fees. The claim was made by a letter during the assessment proceedings. The AO rejected the claim on the ground that he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
