ITO, Gurgaon V. M/s. Orbit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 3260/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9688 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHYAM SUNDE
• Keywords: Business income; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3260/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ITO, WARD-11(1), GURGAON. V. M/S. ORBIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., C/O BIZZOTEL HOTEL, 2390/3 OLD DELHI GURGAON ROAD, OPP. DHINGRA MOTORS, GURGAON. TAN/PAN: AAACO 8256D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.5885/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, GURGAON. V. M/S. ORBIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., C/O BIZZOTEL HOTEL, 2390/3 OLD DELHI GURGAON ROAD, OPP. DHINGRA MOTORS, GURGAON. TAN/PAN: AAACO 8256D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.R. SENAPATI, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY: S/SHRI RAJIV SAXENA, ADV., AJIT KUMAR JHA, ADV. & SHYAM SUNDER, AR DATE OF HEARING: 28 06 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 09 2018 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 2 31.03.2014 FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S . 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10; AND APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.08.2014 IN RELATION TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S.154, BOTH PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-II , FARIDABAD. 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10, WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS:- I. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE AMOUNT OF RS.5 ,51,66,956/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80ID SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED RS.71,21,612/- ON CIVIL WORK DURING TH E RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR AND ALSO THE AUDIT REPORT SHOWS BUI LDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN SCHEDULE -5, WHICH REFLECTS THAT T HE HOTEL WAS NOT COMPLETED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. II. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION CERTIF ICATE ISSUED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BUILDING) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GU RGAON WHEREAS THE SAME DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DESCRIPTION OF BUILDI NG IN RESPECT OF WHICH IT IS ISSUED AND WHERE THE SAME IS LOCATED. III. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ACCEPTING THE POST FACTO RE SUBMISSION OF FORM NO. 10CCBBA FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS IN THE ORIGINAL FORM NO. 10CCBBA, THE AUDITOR HAS FAILED T O FILL UP VITAL PARTICULARS SUCH AS NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE HOTEL, DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATION BY HOTEL, INITIAL ASSESSM ENT YEAR AND PARTICULARS OF APPROVAL FROM THE TOWN PLANNING AUTH ORITY IN COLUMN- 5,6,7 AND 8 RESPECTIVELY. I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 3 IV. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE UNDER RULE-46A WHEREAS SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES ON WHICH TH E ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80ID CAME INTO DOUBT HAVE BEEN INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPLY FILED ALONGW ITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE QUERY BY THE ASSESSEE OI1 HAVE DULY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO BEFORE PASS ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80ID ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS RUNNING OF HOTEL IN THE NAME OF BIZZOTEL HOTEL IN GURGAON AND HAS CLA IMED DEDUCTION U/S.80ID OF RS.5,51,66,956/- DERIVED FROM THE HOTEL BUSINESS. IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF DE DUCTION U/S.80ID, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE RECO RDS AND IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS :- I) COPY OF MAP OF HOTEL APPROVED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINE ER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GURGAON DATED 26.03.2007. II) COPY OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 03.09.2007 ISSUED BY XEN/BUILDING/MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GURGAON. III) COPY OF HOUSE TAX BILLS DATED 04.10.2007 IN TH E NAME OF ASSESSEE. IV) COPY OF XEN/DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM (DHBVN) LTD. LETTER DATED 18.06.2007 RELEASING ELECTRICITY CONNE CTION FOR 25000 KW TO THE ASSESSEE. V) COPY OF WATER/SERVICE CHARGES BILL DATED 07.01.2 007. VI) COPY OF HOTEL & RESTAURANT APPROVAL & CLASSIFIC ATION COMMITTEE DATED 18.09.2007 GRANTING 3-STAR STATUS TO ASSESSEE HOTEL. VII)FORM NO. 10CCBBA DATED 03.09.2009 DULY SIGNED B Y SH. RAMESH SARDANA, C.A. & COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 4 4. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DETAILED DISCUSS ION HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80I D FOR THE REASONS THAT, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN 'BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION' DURING THE YEAR IN SCHEDULE 5 OF AUDIT REPORT, WH EREAS THE HOTEL BUILDING IS SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETED BY 30.09 .2007, I.E., DATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE. TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTIO N AS ON 01.04.2008 WAS REFLECTED AT RS.31,10,824/- WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS VERY UNREALISTIC FIGURE AS NO 3-STAR HOTEL CAN BE COMPLETED AT SUCH A LOW-COST OF CIVIL CONSTR UCTION. HE HELD THAT THE COPY OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 03.09.2007 ISSUED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (BUILDING) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GURGAON LACKS GENUINENESS AS THE SAME DOES NOT CONT AIN ANY DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING IN RESPECT OF WHICH IT IS I SSUED AND WHERE THE HOTEL IS LOCATED, WHICH IS THE BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT AS PER THE OFFICE PROCEDURE S. ON PERUSAL OF THE FORM NO.10CCBBA HE NOTICED THAT VITA L PARTICULARS IN GIVEN IN COLUMN 5 TO 8 HAVE NOT BEEN FILLED, WHICH IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80ID(3)(IV) OF THE ACT; AND ACCOUNTANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILL IN CORRECT AND COMPLETE PARTICULARS THERE AND THEN AGA IN AT THE TIME OF FILLING OF RETURN OF INCOME. HE HELD THAT P OST FACTO RE- SUBMISSIONS OF FORM NO.10CCBBA BY REMOVING THE DEFE CTS /DEFICIENCIES DETECTED WHEN POINTED OUT BY HIM DOES NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT AND ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED SUMMARILY AS THE COMPLETE AND FULL PARTICULARS HAVE TO BE FILLED IN AND SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF FILLING OF INCOME TAX RETU RN, AS I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 5 PRESCRIBED BY INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISA LLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE APART FROM FIL ING OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER, ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BY WAY OF PETITION UNDER RULE 46A AND POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD CONFRONTED WITH CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES TO BE EXPLAIN ED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 30.12.2011, WHEREAS ASSESSM ENT WAS TO BE FRAMED ON NEXT DAY I.E. 31.12.2011; AND ASSES SEE HAD ALSO OBJECTED TO INADEQUATE TIME GRANTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. IN THIS BACKGROUND, ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT I T WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING/FURNIS HING THE EVIDENCES. LD. CIT (A) SENT ALL THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 05.04.2014 HAS OBJECTED FOR ADMISSION OF SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. LD. CIT (A) THEN EXAMINED THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND THE ORDE R-SHEET ENTRIES OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FOUND THA T PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ONLY A DAYS TIME WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RESPOND TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AFTER GIVING DETAIL REASONING. FURTHER, IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WHILE REBUTTING THE ARGUM ENTS AND THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION, FILED FOLLOWING DETAILS AND DOCUMENT S BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). I) 'PROJECT APPROVAL FROM MINISTRY OF TOURISM' VIDE LETTER NO. 5-TH-I (62) I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 6 06 DATED 01.12.2006. (II) CERTIFICATE FOR RUNNING OF THREE STAR HOTEL, F ROM 'HOTEL & RESTAURANT APPROVAL & CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE'.'GOVT. OF INDI A, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM. (III) GRANT OF AUTHORIZATION (EPC GI CONCESSIONAL D UTY OF 5%) FOR IMPORT OF ITEMS NAME 'SERVICES PROVIDER' 'HOTEL & RESTAURA NT FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, NEW DELHI INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY (GOVT, OF INDIA) VIDE AUTHORIZA TION NO. - 0530144188 DATED 26.07.2007. (IV) ELECTRIC LOAD SANCTIONED LETTER DATED 18.06.2007. (V) CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION NO. R. C. NO. L.T/GRW/ 00028 UNDER SECTION 11(1) OF HARYANA TAX UNDER LUXURIES ACT 200 7 VALID FROM 07.08.2007. (VI) FOOD LICENSE FROM MUNICIPALITY FOR SALES OF FOOD A ND AERATED WATER FOR SERVING OF FOODS TO ROOM GUEST W.E.F. 20. 06.2007. (VII) CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR RUNNING OF HOTEL & RESTAURANT FROM THE EXCISE & TAXATION AUTHORITY GURGAON (HARYA NA) VIDE TIN NO. 06631930636 VALID FROM 07.12.2006. (VIII) NO-OBJECTION FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DATED 09.01.2 007. (IX) GRANT OF LICENSE IN FORM, L-4/L-5 FOR SERVING LIQU OR FROM EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ALONGWITH NO-OBJECTI ON FROM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, GURGAON. (X) WATER & SEWERAGE CHARGES BILL DATED 27.01.2007 FRO M HARYANA PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GURGAON. (XI) HOUSE TAX RECEIPT FROM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HA RYANA. (XII) NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM CIVIL SURGEON FROM G URGAON, HARYANA. 5.1 APART FROM THAT POINT-WISE REBUTTAL WAS ALSO MADE WHICH HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 7 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING WITH REGARD T O THE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80ID. IN SUMS AND SUBSTANCE, THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) WERE AS UNDER:- A) AS REGARDS AO'S OBSERVATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD S PENT UNREALISTICALLY LOW AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF BUYING A PLOT OF LAND, IT HAD BOUGHT COVERED AREA MEASURING 18500 S Q.FT. AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF COVERED AREA THA T NOMINAL EXPENSES WERE MADE ON CIVIL WORK. WHILE SUBMITTING TH AT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.71,21,612/- WAS SPENT ON CIVIL WORKS ON THE AFORESAID BUILDING, THE APPELLANT HASTENED TO ADD THAT IT INCURRED ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.1,19,89,188/- TILL 31 .03.2008 AND RS.1,93,70,992/- TILL 31.03.2009 TOWARDS OTHER AM ENITIES REQUIRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF HOTEL, NAMELY, FURNITURE , FIXTURES, LIFT, TELEPHONE, FIRE-EXTINGUISHERS, TELEVISIONS, FITN ESS MACHINES ETC. IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT ALSO PRODUCED A COPY OF SALE DEED AS PER WHICH IT HAD ACQUIRED A C OVERED AREA MEASURING 18500 SQ. FT. ON WHICH FURTHER ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE RESULTING IN THE SETTING UP OF THE HOTEL. (B) AS REGARDS AO'S OBSERVATION THAT THE BUILDING HAD B EEN SHOWN TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A TECHNICAL AND INADVERTENT OMISSION BY THE AUD ITOR AND WENT ON TO ADD THAT A MERE NARRATION 'BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION' WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETE. IN ORDER TO CORROBORATE THE FACT THAT THE HOTEL HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND WAS FUNCTIONING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE A PPELLANT DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE UNDERSIGNED TO THE FACT THAT IT HAD DEPOSITED TAXES TO THE TUNE OF RS.26,48,721/- PERTAINING TO I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 8 FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND RS 71,72,194/- FOR THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 WITH THE EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT A S LUXURY TAX. C) FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT ADDED THAT AS PRESCRIBED BY GOVT, OF INDIA FOR 'NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS', EVERY H OTELIER HAS TO SUBMIT THE COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF THE FOREIGN ER GUEST IN 'FORM C' (HOTEL ARRIVAL REPORT) UNDER RULE 14 FOR REGI STRATION OF FOREIGNERS RULES (1939) GIVING COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF GUEST (FOREIGNER) IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM ALONGWITH THE PASSP ORT NUMBER. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF 'FORM C' PERTAI NING TO A GUEST IN THE HOTEL (SHRI DEWATRE CHARLES), A FOREI GNER, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED WITH CONCERNED DEPARTMENT ON 21.09.2007. THIS SHOWS THAT MR. CHARLES STAYED IN THE HOTEL IN SEPTEMBER 2007. SIMILARLY, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT SIX FOREIGNERS BOOKED THE HOTEL ON 20.09.2007. A COPY O F SIX 'FORM C'S DULY COMPLETED GIVING PASSPORT NUMBER OF EACH & EVERY FOREIGNER SUBMITTED WITH THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT ON 22.09.2007 WAS ALSO GIVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS. ON THE BASIS OF THIS CONCRETE EVIDENCE THE APPELLANT SUBST ANTIATED THE FACT THAT THE HOTEL WAS FUNCTIONING EVEN BEFORE THE STAR T OF THE YEAR. D) THE APPELLANT ALSO GAVE A LIST OF REPUTED COMPANIE S WHOSE GUESTS STAYED IN THE HOTEL DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION AS WELL AS THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN ORDER TO CORROBORAT E ITS STATEMENT, THE APPELLANT GAVE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE TO O NE OF ITS REPUTED CLIENTS, NAMELY MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD DULY CONFIRMED BY THE COMPANY CONCERNED. A NUMBER OF INVO ICES IN THE SAID DETAILS RELATE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS EVIDENCE FURTHER CEMENTS THE FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR I N QUESTION, THE HOTEL WAS VERY MUCH FUNCTIONING. E) AS REGARDS, AO'S OBSERVATION THAT THE COMPLETION CER TIFICATE I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 9 ISSUED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BUILDING) MUNICIPAL CO UNCIL, GURGAON LACKED GENUINENESS, THE APPELLANT POINTED OUT T HAT THE SAID CERTIFICATE CLEARLY MENTIONED THE LOCATION OF THE HOTEL AS PER WHICH IT WAS LOCATED AT DELHI ROAD IN THE CITY OF GURGAON. SINCE THE LOCATION OF THE HOTEL WAS SPECIFIED IN THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BUILDING), MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GURGAON, THE APPELLA NT STRESSED THE FACT THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DERIVED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THIS CERTIFICATE. (F) AS REGARDS DEFECTS IN FORM 10CCBBA POINTED OUT BY THE AO AS ONE OF THE GROUNDS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U /S 80ID OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE SOME DEFECTS, WHICH WERE REMOVED AS SOON AS THE APPE LLANT CAME TO KNOW ABOUT IT FROM THE AO. THIS FACT GETS CORROBO RATED BY THE ORDER-SHEET ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. AS PER THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES, THE AO POINTED OUT CERTAI N DEFICIENCIES IN FORM 10CCBBA TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL O F THE APPELLANT ON 29.12.2011, WHICH WERE REMOVED AND A FR ESH FORM 10CCBBA WAS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. THE SAME HAS BEEN DULY ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED 30.1 2.2011. THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON THE SAME DA TE I.E. ON 30.1 2.2011, THE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY ON 30.12.2011 MA KES IT EVIDENT THAT THE FRESH FORM 10CCBBA WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT W HILE SUBMITTING THAT THE FRESH FORM 10CCBBA WAS FILED DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALSO RELIED UPON A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS PER WHICH DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC/80IA COULD NOT BE DENIED ON MERE GROUND OF CER TAIN DEFICIENCIES IN THE SAID FORM. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS NOVELTY GARMENTS (2007) 256 ITR 688 (RAJASTHAN), IT WAS HELD THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF AUDITOR'S REPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 10 DEDUCTION OF 80HHC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE OLD FO RMAT OF FORM NO. 10CCAC IN PLACE OF NEW FORMAT IS A DEFECT, W HICH CAN BE CORRECTED BY FILING THE AUDITOR'S REPORT IN THE REV ISED FORMAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6.1 APART FROM THAT, HE HAD ALSO GIVEN HIS FINDING ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE LIKE; I) COPY OF FORM-C PERTA INING TO SHRI DEWATRE CHARLES WHICH WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE CONCER NED DEPARTMENT ON 21.09.2007; II) PASSPORT NO. AND OTHE R DETAILS OF SIX FOREIGNERS, WHO STAYED IN HOTEL AND WHOSE PA RTICULARS WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT ON 20.09.2007; III) A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ONE OF THE ASSESSEES CLIENT, NAMELY, MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. GIVING DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE BY IT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY AND ALL THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN RELATION TO THE GUE STS OF MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., WHO STAYED IN THE HOTEL; IV) THE INVOICE DATE GIVEN IN THE SAID CERTIFICATE, WHICH M AKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT A NUMBER OF CLIENTS OF MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. WHO STAYED IN THE HOTEL DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; V) PROOF THAT THE COMPANY HAD PAID L UXURY TAX OF RS.26,48,721/- FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2008 AN D RS.71,72,194/- FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2009; VI) ELECTRICAL LOAD SANCTIONING LETTER DATED 18.06.2007; VII) LETT ER FROM CIVIL SURGEON, GURGAON TO ASSESSEE-COMPANY DATED 24.10.20 07, GIVING 'NO OBJECTION' FOR ESTABLISHING KITCHEN UNDE R RULES AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY HIM; VIII) HOUSE TAX RECEIP T FROM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HARYANA DATED 09.10.2007; IX) NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM HARYANA FIRE SERVICE DAT ED 09.01.2007; AND X) THE ASSESSEE ALSO GAVE COPIES OF RENEWAL I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 11 CERTIFICATES WHEREVER THE INITIAL CERTIFICATE, ISSU ED FOR A FIXED PERIOD OF TIME, HAD EXPIRED. HE THUS, HELD THAT ONC E THE GUESTS WERE IN HOTEL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED RE CEIPTS FROM THE HOTEL BUSINESS, THEN THAT MEANS NOT ONLY I T WAS FUNCTIONAL BUT ALSO THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS WERE FROM T HE BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY HE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. 7. BEFORE US, LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OU T CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF DE DUCTION U/S.80ID. THOUGH, THE SAME WERE CONFRONTED ON 29.12 .2011, BUT ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTS WHICH ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS DULY CONSIDERED WHILE PASSING THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND THEREFORE, IT IS INCORRECT TO HOLD THAT A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES SHOULD BE ADMITTED. APART FROM THAT, THER E NO SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BUI LDING BUT ON OTHER AMENITIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH PUTS A QUESTION MARK ON THE COMPLETE FUNCTIONING OF THE HO TEL. EVEN THE AUDITORS HAVE MENTIONED THAT BUILDING WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTIN G THE REVISED FORM 10CCBBA. THUS, ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THA T NOT ONLY THE HOTEL WAS FUNCTIONAL BUT ALL THE REQUISITE APPR OVALS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE HOTELS WERE SUBMITTED WHICH WERE I SSUED PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ONCE, THE ASS ESSEE HAD SHOWN HUGE AMOUNTS SPENT ON AMENITIES FOR RUNNI NG OF I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 12 THE HOTELS AND ALSO FURNISHED THE RECEIPTS FROM THE EARNING OF THE HOTELS, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HOTEL WAS N OT IN OPERATION. ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME O R ANY OTHER BUSINESS AND IF THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN SHO WN IS PURELY FROM THE HOTEL ONLY, THEN SUCH AN INCOME DER IVED FROM THE HOTEL BUSINESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80 ID AND SAME CANNOT BE TAXED. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT E VEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TREATED THE SAID INCOME U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ONCE IT IS A B USINESS INCOME THEN OSTENSIBLY SUCH A BUSINESS INCOME DERIV ED FROM THE HOTEL IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80ID. HE AL SO POINTED OUT TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS (PAPER BOOK) FILED BEFORE US, WHICH WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WEL L AS LD. CIT (A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PE RUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS WELL AS MATTER REFERRED TO BEFORE US. THE MAIN REASON FOR D ENIAL OF DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.80ID IS THAT , ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO OPERATE THE HOTEL AS IT WA S STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE REASON FOR COMING TO THIS CONCLUS ION WAS THAT; FIRSTLY , IN THE AUDIT REPORT IN SCHEDULE-5 AUDITORS HAVE SHOWN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS ON 01.04.2008 AT RS.31,10,824/- WH ICH IS TOO LOW; AND SECONDLY, THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE D ATED 03.09.2007 ISSUED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING MUNICIPA L COUNCIL, GURGAON LACKS GENUINENESS. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED VARIOUS DETAILS AND DOCU MENTS I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 13 WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED ABOVE IN THE FORM OF A PPROVALS FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS INCLUDING MINISTRY OF TOUR ISM CERTIFICATE FOR RUNNING THE 3 STAR HOTELS AND OTHER LICENSES AND NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATES REQUIRED FROM VARIO US DEPARTMENT. APART FROM THAT, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILE D ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH TOO HAVE BEEN INCORPORAT ED ABOVE AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF THE GUESTS WHO STAYED IN TH E HOTELS AND THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. THE ASSE SSEE HAD ALSO PAID VARIOUS TAXES LEVIED ON THE BILLS RAI SED TO THE GUESTS WHO WERE MAINLY THE GUESTS OF MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THA T ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE COST OF THE LAND AT RS.1,18,69,00 0/- IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006 AND THEREAFTER, VARI OUS ADDITIONS/CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZ ED WHICH AGGREGATED TO MORE THAN RS.71 LACS. FURTHER, THE AS SESSEE HAD ALSO SPENT ON CIVIL WORK FOR SUMS AGGREGATING T O RS.1,19,89,188/- TILL 31 ST MARCH, 2008; AND AGAIN RS.1,93,70,992/- TILL 31 ST MARCH, 2009 UNDER THE HEAD AMENITIES REQUIRED FOR HOTEL LIKE FURNITURE AND F IXTURES, LIFT, TELEPHONE, GENERATOR, FIRE-EXTINGUISHERS, KITCHEN E QUIPMENTS AND CATENA OF OTHER AMENITIES REQUIRED IN THE HOTEL ROOMS AND HOTEL BUSINESS. THE HOTEL IS NOT MERELY A BUILDING BUT ALSO HAS TO PROVIDE VARIOUS AMENITIES TO THE GUESTS FOR WHIC H ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE DETAILS NOT ONLY IN THE BALANCE SHEET BUT ALSO BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ADDUCED CERTAIN EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE HOTEL WAS FULLY OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EVEN DEPOS ITED I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 14 APPLICABLE TAXES, LIKE LUXURY TAXES ETC., TO THE TU NE OF RS.48 LAC PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND T O THE EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT. IT HAS ALSO SHOWN T HE RECEIPTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AT RS.2,86, 65,924/- AND RECEIPTS OF RS.7,47,49,703/- DURING THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 AND HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE LIST AND THE NAM E OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO WERE STAYED WITH THE ASSESSEE FROM WH OM IT HAS EARNED REVENUE/RECEIPTS. THE DETAILS OF WHICH A RE AS UNDER: F. YEAR 2007-08 (A/Y 2008-09) F . YEAR 2007-08 (A/Y 2008-09) NAMES OF THE CO. AMOUNT (RS.) NAME OF THE CO. AMOUN T (RS.) MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. 44,00,890.00 SUZUKI POWER-TRAIN INDIA LTD. 1,65,40,246.00 SUZUKI POWERTRAIN INDIA LTD. 34,49,610.00 MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. 69,15,662.00 KONI TRAVELS INDIA LTD. 2,29,160.00 SOJIT INDIA LIMITED 28,12,138.00 PHOEONIX INDIA LIMITED 2,15,919.00 TENECO RC INDIA LTD. 1,07,870.00 SONA KOYO STEARING SYSTEM LTD. 2,46,354.00 WAVE ENGINEERING & DESIGN LTD. 1,00,694.00 AGEIES BPO SERVICES LTD. 15,903.00 SRI RANBAXY LTD. 1,95,971.00 AMTEK AUTO LTD. 48,400.00 SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA PVT. LTD. 71,796.00 HAVELLS INDIA LTD. 49,000.00 HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. 76,162.00 SYGENTA INDIA LTD. 86,382.00 ORIENT CRAFT PVT. LTD. 19,146.00 UCLA FUEL SYSTEM LTD. 51,9880.00 KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. 35,000.00 TOTAL 87,93,606.00 TOTAL 2,68,74,685.00 I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 15 10. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SUCH A HUGE AM OUNT OF RECEIPTS FROM HOTEL BUSINESS AND THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT TO HOLD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD SOME OTHER BUSINESS OR SOURCES OF INCOME, THEN IT H AS TO BE RECKONED THAT RECEIPTS ARE PURELY FROM THE HOTEL BU SINESS AND IF THAT IS SO, THEN ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION U/S.80ID. EVEN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DENYING TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80ID HAS TAXED THE INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IF IT IS A BU SINESS INCOME DERIVED FROM HOTEL BUSINESS, THEN WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON AS TO WHY SUCH A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION SHOULD BE DENIED. IN SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION BY THE LD. DR FO R ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, THE SAME ARE NOT TENABLE, BECAUSE FIRSTLY, ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RAISE D THE QUERY A DAY BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND WHATEVE R MATERIAL ASSESSEE COULD PROVIDE WAS GIVEN AND FURTH ER EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) TO PROVE THE FUNCTIONING AND OPERATION OF THE HOTEL. LD. CIT (A) HAD SENT THE ENTIRE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR PROPER EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF EXAMINING THE SAME HAS OBJECTED FOR SUCH AN ADMISSI ON WITHOUT ANY COGENT GROUNDS. LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A VERY DETAILED FINDING NOT ONLY FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SUCH EVIDENCE BUT ALSO HOW THEY ARE RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE ISS UE IN HAND. 11. THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT ONLY BASED ON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACT BUT ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM SUC H A I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 16 FINDING AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT ( A) IS AFFIRMED AND CONSEQUENTIALLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED. 12. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09, THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80ID AMOUNT ING TO RS.1,45,04,850/- ON THE GROUND THAT SAME WAS NOT BE ING CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME BUT ONLY B Y WAY OF REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION U/S.154 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CL AIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80ID ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE REVISED RETURN DATED 31.01.2009 IN WHICH SUCH A CLA IM WAS MADE, AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED SUC H A CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE INCOME T AX RETURN DOWNLOADED FROM THE SYSTEM REVEALS THAT THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S.80ID WAS NOT MADE AND SIMILAR CLAIM H AS BEEN REJECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ALSO. 13. THE FACTS IN BRIEF AND BACKGROUND ARE THAT AS SESSEE HAD FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.20 08 SHOWING GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,45,04,849/- AS PER E-FIL ING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.46088290300908/-. THOUGH, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER -VI A. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT F OLDER DID NOT REVEAL SUCH RETURN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS AN I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 17 UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED RET URN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2009 DECLARING GROSS TOTAL INCOME O F RS.2,28,98,593/- WHICH WAS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSM ENT FOLDER WITH E-FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.67426740310 309. LD. CIT (A) HAS NOTED THESE IMPORTANT FACTS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF APPRECIATION IS REPRODU CED HEREUNDER: THE FACTS ARE THAT THE APPELLANT FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2008 SHOWING A GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,45, 04,849/-. THE E- FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO., AS PER A COPY OF THE RE TURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS 46088290300908. IN THE SAID RETURN, T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION UN DER CHAPTER VIA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE FACT OF FILING OF RETURN BY THE APPELLANT ON 30.09.2008 AND CLAIMING THE AFORES AID DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER WAS PERUSED. IN THE ASSESSMEN T FOLDER, THE SAID RETURN IS NOT AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, REVISED RETU RN FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 31-03-2009, DECLARING A GROSS TOTAL IN COME OF RS.2,28,96,593/- IS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOL DER. THE E-FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. OF THAT RETURN IS 6742674031030 9. NO DEDUCTION U/S 80ID OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN T HAT RETURN. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT GAVE A COPY OF RETURN WITH T HE SAME E-FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. AS PER WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER CH APTER VIA AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,28,96,593/- WAS CLAIMED. THE APP ELLANT SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO FILING THIS RETURN, IT REVISED I TS RETURNS TWICE ON 31.03.2009 BEARING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 676078803103 09 AND 67725160310309. BOTH THESE RETURNS FILED SUBSEQUENT TO THE RETURN AVAILABLE WITH THE AO, SHOW A CLAIM UNDER CHAPTER V IA AMOUNTING TO RS.2,28,96,593/- RESULTING IN NIL TOTAL INCOME FOR THE APPELLANT. THE ONLY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE TWO RETURNS IS THAT IN THE LATEST RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 31.03.2009 BEARING ACKNOW LEDGEMENT NO. 677251603100309, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 18 SECTION 80ID OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THIS RETURN, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION, RESU LTING IN NIL TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 13.1 IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE ALSO GAVE A COPY OF FORM NO.10CCBBA AS PER WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS ENTI TLED TO A DEDUCTION U/S 80ID OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,28,96,593/-. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE LATEST RETURN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AND HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION SIMPLY ON THE GRO UND THAT NO SUCH CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND FAC TS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOTED THE F OLLOWING FACTS EMERGING FROM THE RECORDS:- 1. THE APPELLANT FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCO ME ON 30.09.2008 CLAIMING A DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,45,04,849/ - UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, BY FILING REVISED RETURNS, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THE ENHANCED AMOUNT OF RS.2,28,96 ,593/- AS A DEDUCTION. AS PER THE COPY OF THE LATEST RETURN FIL ED BY THE APPELLANT ON 31.03.2009 (E FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 6772516031 00309), A DEDUCTION OF RS.2,28,96,593/- WAS CLAIMED U/S 80ID OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. II. THE AO, ON THE OTHER HAND, DID NOT ALLOW THE CL AIM OF SECTION 80ID ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED TH E AFORESAID DEDUCTION. III. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT REVEALS THAT THE AO REJECTED APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S 80ID AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,45,04,849/-. HOWEVER, ON A PERUS AL OF THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER, A COPY OF THE SAID RETURN FILED ON 30.09.2008 COULD NOT BE FOUND. I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 19 IV. THE ONLY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT F OLDER IS THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 31.03.20 09 BEARING E-FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.67426740310309. AS PER THIS RETU RN AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLA IMED DEDUCTION U/S 80ID OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. WHEN CONFRONTED WITH TH ESE FACTS, THE APPELLANT GAVE A COPY OF THE RETURN BEARING THE SAM E E-FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. IN WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED A DEDUC TION U/S 80ID OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.2,28,96,593/-. T HIS LEADS TO EMERGENCE OF A STRANGE SITUATION, SINCE AS PER THE DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS, THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BY THE APPELLANT WH EREAS AS PER THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RETURN E-FILED BY THE APPELLA NT AND BEARING THE SAME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI A AMOUNTING TO RS.2,28,96,593/- WAS CLAIMED. V. THE ISSUE IS CLINCHED BY THE FACT THAT SUBSEQUEN T TO THE FILING OF THE FIRST REVISED RETURN ON 31.03.2009( A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS), THE APPELLANT REVISED ITS RETU RN TWICE ON THE SAME DAY AS PER WHICH CLAIM OF RS.2,28,96,593/- WAS MADE U/S 80ID OF THE ACT. THE AO WHILE DISPOSING OF APPELLAN T'S APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT DID NOT GIVE DUE COGNIZANCE TO THE F ACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED ITS FINAL REVISED RETURN ON 31. 03.2009 CLAIMING A DEDUCTION U/S 80ID OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.2,28, 96,593/- 13.2 AFTER NOTING THESE FACTS, HE HELD THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE ENTIRE FACTS BEFO RE DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80ID. HE ALSO HELD THAT IN ANY CASE SUCH A CLAIM CAN ALWAYS BE ENTERTAINED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ INDIA LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED I N (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 14. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE ASKED THE LD . DR TO FILE A PAPER BOOK BASED ON ASSESSMENT RECORDS WHICH HAS I.T.A. NO.3260 & 5885/DEL/2014 20 BEEN FILED BEFORE US. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THERE IS AN INCOME TAX RETURN DATED 31.03.2009 VIDE E- FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 67426740310309 WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER-VIA AMOUNTING TO RS.2,28,96,593/-. ORIGINAL RETURN OF I NCOME HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE US. ONCE IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN FILED AND CLAIM HAS BEEN MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN SUCH A CLAIM HAS TO BE ENTERTAINED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN DULY APPRE CIATED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AS INCORPORATED ABOVE. APART FROM T HAT, ON MERITS ALSO ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80ID WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THUS, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDIN GLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 PKK: