Perlos Telecommunication and Electronic Components India (P) Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1037/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68862 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S.PERLOS TELECOMMUNICATION AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS INDIA (P) LTD., PLOT NO. 1A, NOKIA TELECOM SPECIAL ELECTRONIC ZONE, SIPCOT INDL. PARK, PHASE-III, SRIPERUMBUDUR, CHENNAI 602 105. [PAN: AADCP 9246 K] (APPELLANT) VS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-V(1), CHENNAI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR CHAKRAPANI, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 28-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-11-2013 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-V, CHENNAI DATE D 28-02-2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 200 8-09. I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PLASTIC MOULDED AND ELECTRO NIC COMPONENTS FOR USE IN TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-09-2008 DECLARING LOSS OF ` 22,06,78,103/-. THE ASSESSEES RETURN OF THE INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SC RUTINY AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HER EIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE E ON 13-08- 2009. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED FURTHER EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF ` 10,40,85,702/- WHICH WERE ERRONEOUSLY DIS-ALLOWED U/S.37(7) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LOSS OF ` 32,47,63,805/- AGAINST THE LOSS CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 23-12-2011 PASSED U/S.143( 3) R.W.S. 144C(3), DID NOT CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE C IT(APPEALS) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28-02-2013, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT, FOR ADDITIONAL CLA IM OF EXPENSES I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 3 FILING OF REVISED RETURN IS MANDATORY. IN THE ABSE NCE OF REVISED RETURN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DIS-ALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN SECOND APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS ). 3. SHRI PAWAN KUMAR CHAKRAPANI, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFERED A LOSS OF ` 32.47 CRORES, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF IN COME, THE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHILE PREPARING COMPUTATION SH EET, ERRONEOUSLY MENTIONED THE LOSS AS ` 22,06,78,103/- . THE ERROR CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURS E OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE IMM EDIATELY POINTED THE ERROR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILE D THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME CLAIMING ADDITIONAL LOSS OF ` 10,40,85,702/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS-ALLOWED THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH CLAIM CAN BE CONSI DERED ONLY BY WAY OF FILING OF REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN TH E DUE DATE AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY FRESH CLAIM, I T WAS IN THE COURSE OF PREPARING COMPUTATION OF INCOME CERTAIN E XPENDITURES WERE ERRONEOUSLY LEFT OUT. THE ERROR WAS RECTIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY PREPARING CORRE CT I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 4 COMPUTATION AND THAT THE SAME WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RECTIFI CATION IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME CAN BE DONE WITHOUT FILING OF REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, LD . AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3908 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD., DECIDED ON 21-06-2012. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITIONAL CLAIM C AN BE ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF FILI NG SIMPLE LETTER. IF THERE WAS ANY ERROR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE RECTIFIED IT BY FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOM E WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE REVISED RETURN, TO CLAIM ALLEGED ADD ITIONAL LOSS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED MERELY ON THE BASIS FOR SIMPLE LETTER. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENT IONS, THE DR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN TAX CASE APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2005 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS DECIDED ON 16-06-2011. I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 5 5. BOTH SIDES HEARD. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS RELIED O N BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES. IT IS AN ADMITT ED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL LOSS OF ` 10,40,85702/- WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO BE ERRONEOUSLY N OT CLAIMED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILE D REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME TO CLAIM AFORESAID ADDITIONAL LOSS. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT WITHOUT FILING RE VISED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM ANY EXPENSES/DEDUCTION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS VIEW, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LIMITED VS. CIT REPORTED AS 284 ITR 323 (SC) AND THE DR HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LIMITED VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THEN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. THE HONBLE MADRA S HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS (SUPRA) WAS DEALING WITH THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE CLAIM RAISED THROUGH A REVISED RETURN FILED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME GIVEN U/S.139(5) OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 6 AFORESAID BOTH THE JUDGMENTS WERE DEALING WITH A DI FFERENT ISSUE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY FRESH CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ALLOWA BLE U/S.37 WHICH WERE ERRONEOUSLY LEFT OUT WHILE FILING THE OR IGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. FOR CLAIMING THESE EXPENDITURE THE ASSESSE E HAD SUBMITTED FRESH COMPUTATION OF INCOME BEFORE ASSESS ING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE ISSUE I N HAND. 6. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE JUDGMEN T OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD., (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE RAISED BEFORE THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT FOR CONSIDERATION: '(A) WHETHER AN ASSESSEE CAN AMEND A RETURN FILED B Y HIM FOR MAKING ADDITIONAL CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHER THAN FI LING A REVISED RETURN ? (B) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE HON'BLE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN LAW, WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION NOT MADE IN THE O RIGINAL RETURN AND NOT SUPPORTED BY A REVISED RETURN, IS AD MISSIBLE ? I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 7 (C) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, IN LAW, WAS RIGHT IN NO T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE AFTER FILING A ORIGINAL R ETURN OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN ?' THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS IN AF FIRMATIVE. WHILE ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS, THE HONBLE COURT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LIMITED VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD., VS., CIT REPORTED AS 229 ITR 383 AND VARIOUS OTHER JUDGMENTS. THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE ARE AS UNDER : 18. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVE HELD THE OMISSION T O CLAIM THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 40 LAKHS TO BE INADVERTENT. BOTH T HE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HELD, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF R S. 20 LAKHS PAID AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR IN QUESTION. W E SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THIS FINDING. WE SEE LESS REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE AP PELLATE AUTHORITIES IN PERMITTING THE RESPONDENT TO RAISE T HIS CLAIM. THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION IN LAW IS ADMITTED AND, IN ANY EVENT, CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RESPONDENT OUGHT NOT BE PREJUDIC ED. I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 8 19. THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY INDICATE THAT BOTH THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITIES HAD EXERCISED THEIR JURIS-DICTION TO CO NSIDER THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM AS THEY WERE ENTITLED TO IN VIEW O F THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS ON THE ISSUE, INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF T HE SUPREME COURT IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. V. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE FAC T THAT THESE JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO IN DETAIL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND BY THE TRI BUNAL. 20. WE WISH TO CLARIFY THAT BOTH THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITIES HAVE THEMSELVES CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM AND ALLO WED IT. THEY HAVE NOT REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE SAME. BOTH THE ORDERS EXPRESSLY DIR ECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 40 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, T HEREFORE, NOW ONLY TO COMPUTE THE RESPONDENT'S TAX LIABILITY WHICH HE MUST DO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDERS ALLOWING THE RESPONDENT A DEDUCTION OF RS. 40 LAKHS UNDER SECTIO N 43B OF THE ACT. 21. THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ERROR IN NOT CLAIMING T HE DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS INADVERTENT CANNOT BE F AULTED FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON. IT IS A FINDING OF FACT WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED PERVERSE. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT MI LITATES AGAINST THE FINDING. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUGGESTE D, MUCH LESS ESTABLISHED THAT THE OMISSION WAS DELIBERATE, MALA FIDE OR EVEN OTHERWISE. THE INFERENCE THAT THE OMISSION WAS INADVERTENT IS, THEREFORE, IRRESISTIBLE. I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 9 22. IT WAS THEN SUBMITTED BY MR. GUPTA THAT THE SUP REME COURT HAD TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) ; [2006] 157 TAXMAN 1. WE A RE UNABLE TO AGREE. THE DECISION WAS RENDERED BY A BEN CH OF TWO LEARNED JUDGES AND EXPRESSLY REFERS TO THE JUDG MENT OF THE BENCH OF THREE LEARNED JUDGES IN NATIONAL THERMAL P OWER CO. LTD. V. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). THE QUESTION B EFORE THE COURT WAS WHETHER THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION, OTHER THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETUR N. AFTER THE RETURN WAS FILED, THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO CLAIM A D EDUCTION BY WAY OF A LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE C LAIM, THEREFORE, WAS NOT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES . THE DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY MODIFYING AN APPLICATION AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WITHOUT REVISIN G THE RETURN. THE COM-MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) A LLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, ALLOW ED THE DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL. IN THE SUPREME COURT, THE ASSE SSEE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. V. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) CONTENDING THAT IT W AS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE POINTS OF LAW EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE SUPREME COURT HELD (PAGE 324 OF 284 I TR) : '4. THE DECISION IN QUESTION IS THAT THE POWER OF T HE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961, IS TO ENTERTAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW P ROVIDED THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECISION DOES NOT I N ANY WAY RELATE TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY F ILING A I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 10 REVISED RETURN. IN THE CIRCUM-STANCES 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 T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POW ER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPEL-LATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDE R AS TO COSTS.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). 23. IT IS CLEAR TO US THAT THE SUPREME COURT DID NO T HOLD ANYTHING CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS HELD IN THE PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF A CLAIM IS NOT MADE BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT CAN BE MADE BEFORE THE APPELL ATE AUTHORITIES. THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITIES TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN NEGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS JUDGMENT. IN FACT, THE SUPREME COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THE CASE WAS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THAT THE JUDGMENT DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254. 24. A DIVISION BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT DEALT WITH A SIMILAR SUBMISSION IN CIT V. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (DELHI). THE DIVISION BENCH, IN PARAGRAP H 17 OF THE JUDGMENT HELD THAT THE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE DECISION WAS LIMITED TO TH E POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DE DUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY A REVISED RETURN AND DID NOT IMPI NGE ON THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN PARAGRAPH 19, THE DIVISI ON BENCH HELD THAT THERE WAS NO PROHIBITION ON THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN AN ADDITIONAL GROUND, ACCORDI NG TO THE TRIBUNAL, ARISES IN THE MATTER AND FOR THE JUST DEC ISION OF THE CASE. I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 11 25. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DE CIDE THE OTHER QUESTIONS RAISED BY MR. MISTRI. 26. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 7. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO MAKE ADDITIONS/DIS-ALLOWAN CES IN THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASE THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE OR WRONG DEDUCTION OR HAS SUPPRESSED HIS INCOME. SIMILARLY, WHERE IT IS APPA RENT FROM RECORDS THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO CLAIM, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GUIDE THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY. THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR DATED APRIL 11,1955 HAS DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ASSE SSEE'S IGNORANCE AND/OR MISTAKE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF T HE CIRCULAR IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: '3. OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT MUST NOT TAKE ADVANT AGE OF IGNORANCE OF AN ASSESSEE AS TO HIS RIGHTS. IT IS ON E OF THEIR DUTIES TO ASSIST A TAXPAYER IN EVERY REASONABLE WAY , PARTICULARLY IN THE MATTER OF CLAIMING AND SECURING RELIEFS AND IN THIS REGARD THE OFFICERS SHOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN GUIDING A TAXPAYER WHERE PROCEEDINGS OR OTHER PARTICULARS BEF ORE THEM INDICATE THAT SOME REFUND OR RELIEF IS DUE TO HIM. THIS ATTITUDE WOULD, IN THE LONG RUN, BENEFIT THE DEPARTMENT FOR IT WOULD I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 12 INSPIRE CONFIDENCE IN HIM THAT HE MAY BE SURE OF GE TTING A SQUARE DEAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT. ALTHOUGH, THEREFOR E, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMING REFUNDS AND RELIEFS RES TS WITH ASSESSEE ON WHOM IT IS IMPOSED BY LAW, OFFICERS SHO ULD: (A) DRAW THEIR ATTENTION TO ANY REFUNDS OR RELIEFS TO WHICH THEY APPEAR TO BE CLEARLY ENTITLED BUT WHICH THEY HAVE O MITTED TO CLAIM FOR SOME REASON OR OTHER ; (B) FREELY ADVISE THEM WHEN APPROACHED BY THEM AS T O THEIR RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AND AS TO THE PROCEDURE TO B E ADOPTED FOR CLAIMING REFUNDS AND RELIEFS.' IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLAIMING EXPENDITURE WHICH WERE ERRONEO USLY DIS- ALLOWED U/S.37(7) WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME . IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY FRESH CLAIM. IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING ADDI TIONAL DEDUCTION OR EXEMPTION. IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, DED UCTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS ARE DEALT WITH IN SEPARATE CHAPTERS OF T HE ACT AND HAVE DIFFERENT CONNOTATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY CLAIMI NG EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS LEFT OUT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ORIGINA L RETURN. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS P OWER TO MAKE UPWARD AND DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT IN THE INCOME R ETURNED BY I.T.A. NO. 1037/MDS/2013 13 THE ASSESSEE. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED C ERTAIN EXPENDITURES CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM RECORDS AND IT CO MES TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD GRANT REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. M/S. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD., (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE ACTED WELL WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION BY TAKING INTO C ONSIDERATION THE RECTIFIED COMPUTATION OF INCOME SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIK AS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 TNMM COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR