9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order dated 27/03/2015 under section 143(3) of the Act, without commenting on assessee's claim made during assessment proceedings. The assessee filed rectification petition under section 154 of the Act before Assessing Officer to consider assessee's claim of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim not made in the return of income/revised return of income in the light of decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported as 284 ITR 323(SC). Aggrieved by the order dated 20/08/2015 passed under section 154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The first appellate authority dismissed assessee's appeal primarily on the ground that the appeal against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act for claiming deduction u/s 80 JJAA is not appropriate remedy. The assessee should have filed appeal against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) for claiming such deduction. Against the aforesaid findings of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Rajan Vora, appearing on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee submitted that the genuine claim of the assessee cannot be rejected merely on technicality. To support his argument the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd., 376 ITR 456 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. , 396 ITR 251 (Mad) (iii) Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain vs. DCIT (Exem.), 266 Taxman 399 (Mad) The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that rejection of claim despite all documents available on record constitute a mistake apparent from record. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee contended that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had furnished all relevant documents for claiming deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act . However, the Assessing Officer failed to take note of assessee's claim of deduction while passing the assessment order. It was a mistake on the part of Assessing Officer in not considering assessee's claim of deduction. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee to buttress his contention placed reliance on the decisions: Anchor Pressings Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 161 ITR 169 (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We observe, in fact the Assessing Officer had no occasion to consider assessee's fresh claim as the same was filed on 28/3/2015 i.e. one day after the passing of the assessment order. The assessee filed petition under section 154 of the Act for considering assessee's claim of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. The Assessing Officer in proceedings under section 154 of the Act rejected assessee's claim of deduction under section 80JJAA expressing his inability to entertain the same in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). In first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) rejected assessee's claim of deduction merely on the ground that for necessary relief the assessee ought to have appealed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act and not in appeal against order seeking rectification under section 154 of the Act. 8. A perusal of the assessment order reveal that the Assessing Officer has not made mention of assessee's claim of deduction in the assessment order, as the claim was ostensibly received after the passing of order. The Assessing Officer considered the claim of assesse in proceedings under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., ITA No.6264/Mum/2018 for A.Y 2013-14 decided on 14/05/2020, under identical circumstances, after considering the provisions of Rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules, 1963, judgements rendered By Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the issue of time limit for pronouncement of orders by the Tribunal and the circumstances leading to lockdown held:- "10. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. We must factor ground realities in mind while interpreting the time limit for the pronouncement of the order. Law is not brooding omnipotence in the sky. It is a pragmatic tool of the social order. The tenets of law being enacted on the basis of pragmatism, and that is how the law is required to interpreted. The interpretation so assigned by us is not only inconsonance with the letter and spirit of rule 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
