The. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar V. M/s. Speedways Footwears, Jalandhar

ITA 439/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94987 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 439/ASR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A MRITSAR BENCH, A MRITSAR. [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND A. D. JAIN, JM ] I.T.A. NO.: 439/ASR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, JALANDHAR . ......... ...... .... APPELLANT VS. M/S SPEEDWAYS FOOTWEARS, SACH PIND BYEPASS, G.T. ROAD, JALANDHAR . .RESPONDENT PAN ABHFS 1677D APPEARANCES BY: S.S. KALRA.... FOR THE APPELLANT TARSEM LAL.... F OR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 04.06.2015 DATE OF PRON OUNCING THE ORDER : 31.08. 201 5 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM : BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE A.O. HAS CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23 RD APRIL, 2014 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR AY 2006 - 07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE ADMITTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO PURPORTED MISTAKE IN WRITING SECTION 80IB IN PLACE OF 80IC IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN WITHOUT REVISING IT WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED, IGNORING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). I.T.A. NO.: 439/ASR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL ONLY A FEW POINTS NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.18,22,289 UNDER SECTION 80IB. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB BUT UNDER SECTION 80IB. HOWEVER, SINCE THE CLAIM WAS MADE UNDER DIFFERENT SECTION, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME. AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 3. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT IT WAS ONLY AN UNINTENDED AND BONA FIDE ERROR THAT INSTEAD OF SECTION 80IC IT WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS SECTION 80IB. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. ON THESE FACTS LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. THE AO IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A BONA FIDE AND UNINTENDED ERROR IN MENTIONING SECTION 80IB IN PLACE OF SECTION 80IC. HOWEVER, IN SUBSTANCE, THE CLAIM WAS UNDER SECTION 80IC AND ADMISSIBLE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN C HALLENGED ON MERITS BY THE AO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ERROR IN CLAIMING BEING ONLY AN INADVERTENT TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS I.T.A. NO.: 439/ASR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PAGE 3 OF 3 JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. WE APPROVE HIS ACTION AND DE CLINE TO INTERFERE. 5. IN THE R ESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED TODAY ON 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST 2015 UNDER PROVISO TO RULE 34(4) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (INCOME - TAX) RULES, 1963. SD/XX SD/XX A.D . JAIN PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AMRITSAR, THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST 2015 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT ( 3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A MRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.