Dy,Commissioner of Incone Tax, Faizabad V. M/s. Co-Cane Development Union Ltd., Faizabad

ITA 359/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78534 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J N SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 359/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 DY. CIT CIRCLE, FAIZABAD V. M/S CO - CANE DEVELOP MENT UNION LTD. FAIZABAD PAN: AABAS8569A (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI. J. N. SHUKLA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 20 05 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 05 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT') IGNORING T HE FACT THAT THE ABOVE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED NOWHERE IN THE RETURN AND THIS DEDUCTION CANNOT BE CLAIMED OTHERWISE THAN FILING A REVISED RETURN AS PER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323. 2 . HAVIN G CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, BUT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT RAISED THE CLAIM OF DED UCTION OF THE ENTIRE INCOME UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT , WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 2 - : ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THIS CLAIM WAS NOT RAISED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 3 . WHEN THE MATTER REACHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HE EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOTED THAT WHEN THE CLAIM H AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE , IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. HE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 . NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ENTERTAINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT , THOUGH IT WAS NOT RAISED IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, CONTRARY TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDI A) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). 5 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) WAS APPLICABLE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND NOT TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE APPE LLATE AUTHORITY IS FULLY EMPOWERED TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM VALIDLY RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH IT MAY NOT HAVE BE EN RAISED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 6 . HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CA REFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PERMITTED TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM NOT RAISED IN THE RETURN O F INCOME, BUT IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM AND TO ADJUDICATE IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 3 - : IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY TH EREIN. MOREOVER, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M/S CO - OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD., BALRAMPUR IN ITA NO.352 /LKW/2011 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IQBALPUR CO - OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD., STATION ROAD, ROORKEE IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.135 OF 2007, IN WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED TO THE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION. WE, THEREFORE, FIN D NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.5.2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 27 TH MAY , 2014 JJ: 2105 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ )