DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI V. J.V. GOKAL & CO.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4483/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9261 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Revised return
• Section: 10AA; 139(5)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4483/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2008-09 DCIT 1(2), R. NO. 535, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. VS.` M/S J.V. GOKUL & CO PVT. LTD. KASTURI BLDG, 2 ND , 171/172, J. TATA ROAD, CHURCHGATE: 400 020. PAN: AAACJ1222A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 01/03/2013 OF CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SOL ITARY GROUND AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10AA AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED WITH IN VALID RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 29.07.2010 I.E. AFTER EXPIRY OF DUE DATE FOR FILING O F REVISED RETURN U/S 139(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN ALONG WITH RE VISED COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.C. TIWARY REVENUE BY SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH DATE OF HEARING 12.02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.02.2015 ITA NO.4483/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2008-09 2 | P A G E 10AA CLAIMING THE ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION OF RS. 96,12 ,334/- ON 29.07.2010 WHICH IS BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT AS PROVIDED U/S 139(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SINCE THIS CLAIM WAS MADE IN BELATED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA ) LTD. VS. CIT (284 ITR 323) . 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT( A) THAT FOR THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE AND, THEREFORE, THE NORMAL TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE REVISED RETURN GOT EXTEND ED BY A YEAR TILL 31 ST DECEMBER 2011. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED T HE REVISED RETURN ON 29.07.2010 TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF AMENDED SECTION 10AA BY FINANCE BILL 2009., AND FINANCE BILL 2010., WHICH IS WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME LIMIT UPTO 29 TH DECEMPER 2011. THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO COMPUTE DEDUCTION U/S 10AA OF THE INCOME TA X ACT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESS EE HAS CORRECTLY WORKED OUT THE CLAIM OR NOT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. DR HAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SU PPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE REVISED CL AIM U/S 10AA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A FRESH CLAIM BUT IT WAS A CORRECT CLAIM AS PER AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10AA, SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOM E. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY DEFECT OR MISTAKE ON THE MERITS OF TH E CLAIM BUT THE REVISED CLAIM WAS REJECTED ONLY ON TECHNICAL GROUND OF LIMITATION. T HE RESTRICTION IN ENTERTAINING THE FRESH CLAIM IS ONLY ON THE JURISDICTION/POWER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. A CCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHEN THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE U/S 10AA WAS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THEN THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY EM POWERED TO ALLOW SUCH A CLAIM WHICH ITA NO.4483/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2008-09 3 | P A G E WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON TEC HNICAL GROUND OF LIMITATION IN FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUCNED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 12-02-2015 SKS SR. P.S, COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI