TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer dated 25th March, 2016 relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the reason in filing the Revision Application is for reasonable cause and should have been condoned by the respondent no.2-Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. We do not accept the contention of the Revenue that restoring the application under Section 264 of the Act the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-respondent no.2 would be an exercise in futility. There are issues to be adjudicated and it is best that the Authority under the Act, discharges his obligation. At this stage, we make no comments on the merits of the Revision Application which is before the Principal CIT-respondent no.2. We set aside the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to pay commission to the above Societies from whom sugarcane is procured. (b) For the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13, the petitioner paid the Societies, the Commission under the Sugarcane Act upto January, 2012. However, the petitioner was under a belief that the State Government would announce waiver of commission to be paid to the Society under the Sugarcane Act for the months of February and March, 2012. In the above view, the petitioner did not claim deduction on account of the above accrued liability in its assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13. However, the waiver as expected from the State Government did not come. On the contrary, on 19th June, 2012 the State Government called upon the petitioners to pay th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, in its application for condonation of delay, was that the deduction on account of payments made to the societies as claimed for the Assessment Year 2013-14 stood rejected by the assessment order dated 25th March, 2016. This by holding that the deduction relates to Assessment Year 2012-13 and could not be allowed in the Assessment Year 2013-14. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, that there was a delay in filing the Revision Application on 22nd April, 2016. The petitioner's sought condonation of delay on the above account and entertainment of its Revision Application on merits. (f). By the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2018 respondent no.2-Principal Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the petitioner's application fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to Societies under the Sugarcane Act was made in previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14. This was consequent to the order dated 19th June, 2012 of the State Government. Therefore, they took a view that, the deduction was allowable in Assessment Year 2013-14. It was in the above context, that though the petitioner had filed a revised return of income, in the year 2013 for Assessment Year 2012-13, it did not claim the deduction of ₹ 4.25 crores being the amount paid to the Societies. It was only after Assessing Officer, by his order dated 25th March, 2016 held that, this deduction of ₹ 4.25 crores relates to Assessment Year 2012-13 and therefore could not be allowed in the Assessment Year 2013-14 that the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under Section 264 of the Act. It was pointed out to him that the decision of the Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was considered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 , wherein after consideration of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), this Court after placing reliance upon National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1998) 229 ITR 383 it has been held that nothing bars an appellate authority from entertaining a claim which may not have been made by the Assessing Officer. It held that it is only the Assessing Officer who is prohibited from entertaining the claim which is not been made in the return filed before it. 8. Mr. Malhotra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opriate that, respondent no.2-Principal CIT passes a fresh order after hearing the parties and considering the above decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the parties. 10. In view of the rival contentions, we do not accept the contention of the Revenue that restoring the application under Section 264 of the Act the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-respondent no.2 would be an exercise in futility. There are issues to be adjudicated and it is best that the Authority under the Act, discharges his obligation. 11. At this stage, we make no comments on the merits of the Revision Application which is before the Principal CIT-respondent no.2. We set aside the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2018 and after condoning the delay i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
