TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim deduction must file returns during the limitation period, so as to enable the Department to take up these cases for scrutiny assessment. Plea of arbitrariness was rejected. The decision and ratio is distinguishable as the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 10A of the Act in the return of income filed within the limitation period. It was, therefore, not a new claim. Question of revision of deduction was not the issue and question raised and answered in Nath Brothers Exim International [2017 (4) TMI 1036 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The objective behind the amendment was to defeat multiple claims of deduction and ensure better compliance. Certainly, the amended provisions ensure better compliance of the statutory provisions. Reference to the expression ‘multiple claims of deduction’ would be with reference to the stipulation that deduction should be claimed under a particular provision and it cannot be shifted and treated as deduction claimed under the other provision. Language of Sub-section 5 to Section 80 A does not state that the deduction once claimed under a particular section cannot be corrected and modified before the Assessing Officer. Indeed, AO can examine the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e making suo motu disallowance of ₹ 2,14,50,610/- and allowance of ₹ 33,25,522/- from business income as declared which it claimed was inadvertently missed out, as per the details given below: Suo Motu Disallowances made by assessee in revised computation Amount (in INR) Unpaid Bonus inadmissible u/s.43B 87,98,002 Provision for Doubtful Debts 1,24,67,570 Payment of employee‟s contribution to PF after due date u/s.36(1) (va) 1,85,038 Total 2,14,50,610 Suo Motu Allowances made by assessee in revised computation Provision for bonus claimed under the provisions of the Section 43B of the Act, on payment basis 1,01,701 Expenditure allowed u/s.40(a) (i) of the Act (disallowance in previous year) 25,83,809 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 10A and the revised computation was filed when the assessment proceedings were in progress. Further, the respondent assessee had duly explained the reasons for revising the computation, which was otherwise genuine and not disputed. 11. The contention of the revenue is that the revised computation should not have been accepted, for which reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was also submitted that the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have failed to take notice of the amendment to Section 80A (5) vide Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. In support, reference was made to the judgment of this court in Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. Vs. Union of India Ors., (2017) 394 ITR 577 (Del.). 12. Counsel for the respondent-assessee, however, has relied upon two decisions of this court in Influence Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 55 Taxman.com 192 (Delhi) and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E-Funds International India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 292 (Delhi). On the second contention it is submitted that this objection was not raised before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the A ITA 261/2002 Page 4 of 6 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. 8. In Sam Global (supra) reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). Reliance was placed on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC), in which it has been observed:- An appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. This was recently reiterated by this Court in a decision dated 25th August 2015 in ITA No. 644/2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-09 v. Western India Shipyard Limited) . In Sam Global Securities Ltd. (supra), this Court pointed out that the power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals was expressed in the widest possible terms and the purpose of assessment proceedings was to assess the correct tax liability. The Court noted that Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not a technical view as what is required to be determined is the taxable income of the Assessee in accordance with law. In Influence v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) a similar approach was adopted when the AO in that case refused to accept the revised computation submitted beyond the time limit for filing the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act. This Court noted that the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) would not apply if the Assessee had not made a new claim but had asked for recomputation of the deduction. 18. Turning to the facts of the present case, as rightly noted by the ITAT itself, this is not a case where any new claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Act has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to in (i) above, shall be allowed if the deduction has not been claimed in the return of income; 20. In the facts of the present case, we do not think Sub-section 5 to Section 80A would be attracted and should be applied. Revised computation made by the assessee, in fact, as noticed above had resulted in disallowance of more than ₹ 2.14 crores, which could have been made by the Assessing Officer while computing the claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. Nevertheless, the enhanced income would not have been taxable. The assessing officer had also accepted that ₹ 6,13,047/- i.e. the provision for leave encashment claimed on payment basis should be allowed. He however, did not allow the other suo motu allowances made by the respondent-assessee. Disallowances and allowances in the revised computation were made in relation to bonus with reference to provision of Section 43B of the Act. Further, allowance of ₹ 25,83,809/- was on account of disallowance made in the previous year which had to be allowed as expenditure in the present year in view of Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act. 21. Sub-section 5 to Section 80A states that if assessee has faile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
