Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7270 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-04-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
-
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
05-06-2017
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NOS. 1440 & 1441/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 & 2009-10 THE SALEM DISTRICT CONSUMERS CO- OPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES LTD., SEETHARAMAN ROAD, SALEM 636 009. [PAN:AAATT2048K] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, SALEM. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MRS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 18.03.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2019 /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM BOTH DATED 30.03.2017 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. IN THE GROUNDS OF BOTH THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT] AS WELL AS REJECTION OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGINAL I.T.A. NOS.1440 & 1441/CHNY/17 2 RETURN OF INCOME OR FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEES ORIGINAL APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS PARTLY ALLOWED BY DISMISSING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, VIDE ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 287/MDS/2014 DATED 30.12.2014, THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. BY RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE KODUMUDI GROWERS V. ITO [2019] 410 ITR 218 (MAD), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED FOR FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS IN RECEIPT OF SUBSIDY OF . 46,78,145/- FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND WHEN ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO I.T.A. NOS.1440 & 1441/CHNY/17 3 FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS EARNING INCOME FROM RUNNING FAIR PRICE SHOPS AND VSP SHOPS UNDER THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (PDS) AND ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE UNDER THE COMPULSION BY THE ORDERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO PROCURE ITS GOODS DULY THROUGH THE TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION UNDER THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND BY A GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVE, THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE SOCIETY FOR MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS IN WHICH THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE PRODUCED BY THE AGRICULTURISTS CAN LEGITIMATELY BE CALLED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IN HIS HANDS, BUT IN THE HANDS OF THE TRADERS IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CALL IT AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND IT WOULD NOT BE HIS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER MADE ANY CLAIM FOR THIS DEDUCTION EITHER IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT NOR THE ASSESSEE FILED ANY REVISED RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE STATUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE AR HAS STATED THAT THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ARE SUPPLIED AT THE SUBSIDIZED RATES FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE GIVEN SUBSIDY BY I.T.A. NOS.1440 & 1441/CHNY/17 4 THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR CARRYING THE SUPPLY ACTIVITIES OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES TO THE FAIR PRICE SHOPS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE AR THAT THE TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION ARE PROCURING THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES AND THE COOPERATIVES ARE COMPELLED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CARE OF DISTRIBUTION PART OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES SUPPLIED THROUGH THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. THE AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE NOT CARRYING THIS AS A REGULAR TRADER IN BUSINESS AND ALSO NOT DOING WITH PROFIT MOTIVE. THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPORTING THE COOPERATIVES BY PROVIDING THE SUBSIDY. THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE, SCHEMES FRAMED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS A MEMBER IN THE APEX SOCIETY. 5. BY REJECTING THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY DOING THE DISTRIBUTION PART OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES SUPPLIED THROUGH THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SUBSIDY FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFIED THE CONDITION STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(III) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF THE KODUMUDI GROWERS V. ITO, WHEREIN, ON SIMILAR I.T.A. NOS.1440 & 1441/CHNY/17 5 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN AN IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY, REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAMIL NADU CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1983, WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND PROVIDED CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IT FILED ITS RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME AT RS.22,16,211 OF WHICH, A SUM OF RS.2,55,118 REPRESENTED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOODS FOR THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH ACTIVITY WAS NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEES BANKING ACTIVITY AND HELD THAT THE INCOME THAT AROSE THEREFROM WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BUT INCLUDED SUCH INCOME FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE OVERALL DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(C)(II) WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.50,000. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PLACE ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE FAIR PRICE SHOPS COULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BANKING ACTIVITIES AND CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). ON APPEAL: HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(L) READ WITH SECTION 80P(2)(A){I). THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ONE WHICH IT WAS NOT AUTHORISED TO DO. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTE THE ITEMS UNDER THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. THE BYE-LAWS THEMSELVES PROVIDED FOR SUCH AN ACTIVITY AS ALL ANCILLARY ACTIVITY BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS BOUND BY THE DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THE FAIR PRICE SHOPS WERE OPENED BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS COMMUNICATED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE TRUNCATED FROM THE ACTIVITY AS A CREDIT SOCIETY AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD COMMITTED AN ERROR IN DENYING THE SPECIAL DEDUCTION. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROCURING ANY FARM PRODUCES DIRECTLY FROM THE FARMERS OR FROM ANY SOCIETY AND SELLING THROUGH FAIR PRICE SHOPS. AS PER THE DIRECTIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHO IS MEMBER OF THE I.T.A. NOS.1440 & 1441/CHNY/17 6 SOCIETY, THE FAIR PRICE SHOPS AND VSP SHOPS ARE OPERATED UNDER THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ARE SUPPLIED BY THE GOVERNMENT AT THE SUBSIDIZED RATES FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE WHOLLY OWNED, THE TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT PROCURE THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES AND ARE BEING DISTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH FAIR PRICE SHOP OF THE SOCIETY UNDER THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, WHEREAS, THIS WAS NOT THE FACT IN THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. AS RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSAM COOPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. V. ADDL. CIT 201 ITR 338 CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT A CREDIT SOCIETY BUT IT IS A MARKETING SOCIETY MAINLY PLAYED THE ROLE OF COMMISSION AGENT FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF FARM PRODUCES AND AFTER SALE, SHARING THE SAID COMMISSION AMONG VILLAGE SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND PRIMARY MARKETING SOCIETY AND THEREBY, THE HONBLE APEX COURT REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS UNDER THE COMPULSION BY THE ORDERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO PROCURE ITS GOODS DULY THROUGH THE TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION UNDER THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND BY A GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVE, THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE SOCIETY FOR MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS I.T.A. NOS.1440 & 1441/CHNY/17 7 MEMBERS IN WHICH THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND BY THE DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THE FAIR PRICE SHOP RUN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OPERATED BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS COMMUNICATED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE TRUNCATED FROM THE ACTIVITY AS A CREDIT SOCIETY AND THEREFORE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT (SUPRA) WAS OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SPECIAL DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2) OF THE ACT. 11. THE NEXT POINT AT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE DEDUCTION WITHOUT MAKING SUCH CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND WITHOUT FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER MADE ANY CLAIM FOR THE DEDUCTION IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED NOR FILED ANY REVISED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(III) OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE SUCH CLAIM IN THE I.T.A. NOS.1440 & 1441/CHNY/17 8 ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME OR FILED ANY REVISED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. 11.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE ABOVE DEDUCTION ONLY BY WAY OF REVISED COMPUTATION IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUCH CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME OR FILED ANY REVISED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ASSESSEE CAN AMEND A RETURN FILED BY HIM FOR MAKING ADDITIONAL CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHER THAN FILING A REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS (P.) LTD. 349 ITR 336 WHILE HOLDING THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE POWER TO CONSIDER CLAIM NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 22. IT WAS THEN SUBMITTED BY MR. GUPTA THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW IN GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (2006) 284 ITR 323(SC); [2006] 157 TAXMAN 1. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE. THE DECISION WAS RENDERED BY A BENCH OF TWO LEARNED JUDGES AND EXPRESSLY REFERS TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE BENCH OF THREE LEARNED JUDGES IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (SUPRA). THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT WAS WHETHER THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION, OTHER THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. AFTER THE RETURN WAS FILED, THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION BY WAY OF A LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CLAIM, THEREFORE, WAS NOT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 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 I.T.A. NOS.1440 & 1441/CHNY/17 9 ASSESSMENT STAGE WITHOUT REVISING THE RETURN. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL. IN THE SUPREME COURT, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED V. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) CONTENDING THAT IT WAS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE POINTS OF LAW EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE SUPREME COURT HELD :- 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. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 23. IT IS CLEAR TO US THAT THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HOLD ANYTHING CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS HELD IN THE PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF A CLAIM IS NOT MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT CAN BE MADE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LIMITED, (2008) 306 ITR 42. THE DIVISION BENCH, IN PARAGRAPH 17 OF THE JUDGMENT HELD THAT THE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE DECISION WAS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY A REVISED RETURN AND DID NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN PARAGRAPH 19, THE DIVISION BENCH HELD THAT THERE WAS NO PROHIBITION ON THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN AN ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL, ARISES IN THE MATTER AND FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE. I.T.A. NOS.1440 & 1441/CHNY/17 10 25. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE OTHER QUESTIONS RAISED BY MR. MISTRI. 11.2 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADMIT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 25 TH APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 25.04.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( )/CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.
Mehul