C G MARKETING PVT LTD,PUNE V. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1),PUNE, PUNE

ITA 134/PUN/2025

AI Insights

C G Marketing Private Limited, a distributor for Procter and Gamble and Gillette India Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, which had rejected their claim for a deduction of Rs. 24 lakhs under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company had initially not claimed this deduction in their return filed for the assessment year 2020-21 but sought to do so during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected the claim on procedural grounds, stating it should have been claimed via a revised return. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, held that it had the authority to entertain the claim and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126578 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom), Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: SARVESH KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; TDS; Grounds of appeal; Dismissed; Commissioner; Commissioner of Income Tax; Statistical purposes; Department; Due opportunity of being heard; Claim of deduction; Distributor; Additional claim
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 80G

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.134/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2020-21 C G Marketing Private Limited C 5020, 5th Floor, Solitaire Business Hub, S.No.207/12/1-1, Near Nico Garden, Vimannagar, Pune – 411014 Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune PAN: AABCC7475M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 21-04-2025 Date of pronouncement : 22-04-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2020-21. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a domestic company and engaged as a distributor of Procter and Gamble as well as Gillette India Ltd. It filed its return of income on 12.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.12,90,54,500/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income 2 ITA No.134/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that it had made donation of Rs.24 lakhs which was inadvertently not claimed as deduction u/s 80G of the Act while filing the return of income. The assessee therefore vide submissions dated 23.09.2021 and 21.01.2022 raised the additional claim for allowing the deduction u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs.24 lakhs and submitted all the supporting documents to substantiate the claim. However, in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 19.09.2022 the Assessing Officer did not allow such claim nor discussed the issue. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee relying on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom) submitted that the assessee is entitled to make additional claim which is not made before the Assessing Officer. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC rejected the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under: “5 I have perused facts of the case, assessment order of the AO, submission of the appellant and the documents available on record. As per the order of the AO, after verification of the three issues i.e - 1. Credit of brought forward TDS. 2. Non-furnishing of Quantitative details. 3. ICDS compliance and adjustments. 3 ITA No.134/PUN/2025 The returned income has been accepted. There is no disallowance of any such claim of deduction u/s 80G. This means that the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal do not emanate from the assessment order. Even otherwise, even if the assessee had inadvertently not claimed the deduction u/s 80G in the return, he could have claimed it by filing a revised return. In view of the foregoing, the said claim of the appellant is rejected. All the grounds of appeal are deemed to have been dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following effective ground: 1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not allowing the additional claim of deduction u/s 80G of the Act. Just and proper relief be granted. 2. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. The only grievance of the assessee in the instant case is regarding the disallowance of claim u/s 80G of the Act which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has rejected on the ground that the assessee had not claimed the same by filing the revised return. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that the said decision was restricted to the powers of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the power of the 4 ITA No.134/PUN/2025 appellate tribunal u/s 254 of the Act. The relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court read as under: “2. The question raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The assessment year in question was 1995-96. The return was filed on 30-11-1995, by the appellant for the assessment year in question. On 12-1-1998, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the assessing officer. The deduction was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Income Tax Act to make amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. 3. This appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed. However, the order of the further appeal of the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed. The appellant has approached this court and has submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in upholding the assessing officer's order. He has relied upon the decision of this court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, to contend that it was open to the assessee to raise the points of law even before the Appellate Tribunal. 4. The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the assessing officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. Respectfully following the above decision, we admit the additional claim made by the assessee u/s 80G of the Act and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the claim of the assessee. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5 ITA No.134/PUN/2025 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 22nd April, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 21.04.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 22.04.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order "