ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT V. .BALAJI WAFERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

ITA 428/RJT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the decision of the Assessing Officer who had rejected their claim for a deduction under section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 1,80,77,969. The deduction was initially not claimed in the original return but was later included in a revised return filed during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim based on the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT, which held that claims for deductions not made in the return cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer otherwise than by filing a revised return. However, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction, noting that the appellate authority could entertain fresh claims if they are lawful. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the claim was substantiated and lawful.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26369 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT 284 ITR 323
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.428/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) ACIT Circle-1(1), Rajkot बनाम/ Vs. M/s Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. Vajdi Vad Kalawad Rd. Tal.Lodhika Dist.Rajkot, Rajkot-360021,Gujarat,India èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACB8755A (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से/ Appellant by Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing 26/09/2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the revenue, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”] dated 20.10.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts that the claim of the assessee of providing deduction of Rs.1,80,77,969/- being the deduction in t Page | 2 ITA.428/RJT/2023/AY.18-19 M/s Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. respect of Employment of new workmen u/s. 80JJAA claiming by way of submission and not by way of filing revised return of income. 3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee- company is engaged in manufacturing of Wafers, Namkeens and generation and transmission of electricity through windmill. In this case, return of income was filed on 07-08-2018 declaring total income at Rs. 1,94,64,49,030/- after claiming deductions under chapter VI-A of Rs. 47,34,87,555/-. Subsequently, the case was selected under Scrutiny through CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 dated 22-09-2019 was issued. Further, notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 18-12-2020, where in the assessee was asked to justify the deduction under chapter VI-A of the income Tax Act. 4. In response to the above show cause notices, the assessee submitted reply before the assessing officer. The assessee submitted that at the time of filing return of income, assessee- company had claimed deductions of Rs. 47.34 crores, however, deduction u/s 80JJAA amounting to Rs. 1,80,77,969/- was remained to be claimed. Thus, revised computation of income and revised ITR form were filed by the assessee before the assessing officer, after incorporating said deduction with a request to accept the revised return of income and allow the claim of deductions. 5. However, the assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee. The assessing officer observed that the claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was made by the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, revised return filed by the assessee is not depicting on e-filing site of ITBA. It is clear that the assessee has t Page | 3 ITA.428/RJT/2023/AY.18-19 M/s Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. not filed any revised return for claiming of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. As there is no provision under the Income Tax Act, to make amendment in the return of income, by making an application at the assessment stage without revising the return of income originally filed, therefore, the assessee's claim was rejected by the assessing officer. For this, the assessing officer relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India)) Limited vs. CIT 284 ITR 323, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that; \" Claim for a deduction not made in the return cannot be entertained by A.O. otherwise than by filing a revised return.”Therefore, the assessing officer denied the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, amounting to Rs. 1,80,77,969/- 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that appellate authorities may entertain a fresh claim of the assessee, provided the claim of the assessee is law full. The ld CIT(A) noticed that the appellant has filed chart showing details of employees with first and last date of employment during the year under consideration, chart showing details employees provident fund or provident fund of new employees and Form no. 10DA to substantiate the claim of deduction. From the documents filed, the appellant fulfils the criteria for the claim of deduction u/s. 80JJA of the Act, therefore, ld CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. t Page | 4 ITA.428/RJT/2023/AY.18-19 M/s Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. 8. Learned D.R. of the revenue, argued that the assessing officer without filing the revised return, cannot allow the deduction and cannot entertain a fresh claim of the assessee. The assessee under consideration has filed the original return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 31.03.2019 and the date of filing, the revised return for A.Y. 2018-19 was up to 31.03.2020. However, the assessing officer filed a revised return of income on 15.03.2021. However, a letter was also filed before the assessing officer by the assessee, showing the claim of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. Therefore, assessing officer do not suppose to entertain the fresh claim as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetz India Ltd, 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We note that during the course of assessment proceedings the appellant filed before the Ld. AO, a new claim u/s 80JJA of the Act, amounting to Rs.1,80,75,969/- along with revised computation of income and revised ITR. However, the Ld. AO by following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 rejected the claim of the assessee . 11. We note that the Supreme Court further clarified that the issue raised in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was limited to the power of assessing authority and did not impinge on the power of the tribunal. In the present case also, the appellate forum had entertained the claim made by t Page | 5 ITA.428/RJT/2023/AY.18-19 M/s Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. the assessee and allowed the same. There is no dispute that the claim/deduction towards the expense is otherwise correct and allowable. Therefore, in our view, the fresh claims made by the assessee, as allowed by the CIT(A), will have to be sustained. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced on 23/12/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- DINESH MOHAN SINHA DR. A. L. SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date:23 /12/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot t Page | 6 ITA.428/RJT/2023/AY.18-19 M/s Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. Strengthened preparation & delivery of orders in the ITAT 1) Date of dictation 26 /09/2024 2) Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member & Other Member /09/2024 3) Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. /09/2024 4) Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement /09/2024 5) Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S. /09/2024 6) Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk /09/2024 7) Date on which the file goes the Head Clerk 8) Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9) Date of Dispatch of the order "