ANUSHAKTI HOLDINGS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS ANUSHAKI CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD), MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5033/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84467 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; Additional depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 80G; 139(5); 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 5033/M/2013 ( AY: 2009 - 2010 ) ANUSHAKTI HOLDINGS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS ANUSHAKTI CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LIMITED )2 ND FLOOR, UDYOG KSHETRA, MULUND, GOREGAON LINK ROAD,MUMBAI 400 080. / VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(3), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAECA 4760 E ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./I.T.A. NO. 5079/M/2013 ( AY: 2009 - 2010 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(3), MUMBAI. / VS. ANUSHAKTI HOLDINGS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS ANUSHAKTI CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LIMITED ) 2 ND FLOOR, UDYOG KSHETRA, MULUND, GOREGAON LINK ROAD,MUMBAI 400 080. ./ PAN : AAECA 4760 E ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA / DATE OF HEARING : 30 .10.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .12 .2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEY ARE CROSS APPEALS. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 22, MUMBAI DATED 9.4.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE CONNECTED, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE 2 CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAS OF THIS ORDER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRO UGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, HE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 9.7.2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MENTIONED THAT THE SAID DELAY IS NOT DELIBERATED A ND THE SAME IS DUE TO WRONG NOTION OF THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING THE TAXATION WORK OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE DELAY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR N OT FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 1 DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. 3. FIRSTLY, WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL ITA NO.5033/M/2013, WHICH IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 3.7.2013. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSE E RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THE FO L LOWING GROUNDS, WHICH ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER: 1. RE: DISALLO WA NCE O F THE A DD I T I ON A L DEPRE C IATION O F RS. 4,22,203 U/S. 32(1)(IIA): 1 . 1 ON T HE FAC T S AND I N T H E CI R CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, T H E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [ HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE LEARNED CIT(A)] H AS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF B A L ANCE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF 10 % ON ADDITIONS MADE IN AY 2008 - 09 . 1.2 T H E L EARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT PROVISIONS GIVING BENEFIT TO THE APPELLANT SHOU L D B E L I B E R A LL Y INTE R PRETED . THERE IS NO PROVISION IN S. 32(1)(IIA) W H ICH RES T RICTS THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT I ON IS TO B E A L LOWED ONLY IN THE F IR ST YEA R OF PU RC HASE MA D E . 2. RE : DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AMOUNTING TO RS. 43 , 77,226/ - : 2.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CI R CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE L EA RN ED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLD I NG DISA LL OWAN C E OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS . 43,77,226/ - U/ S 14A. 2 . 2 THE L EA R NED C I T (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INTEREST DISA LL OWAN C E AMO U NTING TO RS 43 , 77,226/ - U/ S . 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D WITHOUT REA CH ING SATISFACTION THAT THE AMO U NT DISA L LOWED BY THE APPEL L ANT WAS NOT ADEQUATE. 2.3 THE LEA R NED C I T (A) O U GHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPE LL A N T HAS S U F FI CIENT OW N F UNDS FOR INVEST M E N TS AN D HE N CE NO B O R ROWED FUNDS HAVE BEE N U SE D FOR PU RP OSE OF I N VES TM EN T . 2 . 4 THE LEAR N ED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE APPE L LANT HAVE NOT R ECEIVED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURI N G THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HE N CE NO DISALLOWANCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE. 2.5. WITHOUT PREJUDI CE TO THE A BO V E , THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE RECTIFIED ERRORS IN COMP U TA T ION OF D ISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D . 3. RE : INTEREST INCOME TREATED AS ' INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' OF RS. 1,07,73,124/ - : 3 3.1. THE L EARNED C I T (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN T R EATING THE I N TEREST IN C OME OF R S.L,07,73,124/ - A S 'INCO M E F R O M OTHER SOUR C ES' WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HAT I N T E R EST WAS EAR N ED ON ADVAN C ES MADE OUT OF B U SINESS CO M PULSION AND HENCE THE INCOME FROM THE SA M E IS A L SO B USI N ESS INCOME. 3.2. W I THOUT PREJUDICE TO THE A B OV E , THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT REDU C ING INTERE ST EXPENSES INCU R RED FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME U / S 5 7( I II ) AND THEREB Y CONSIDE R ING GROSS INTER EST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF DYES AND INTERMEDIATES. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECL ARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 32.80 CRS (ROUNDED OF). AS A RESULT OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND THE ASSESSED INCOME IS DETERMINED AT RS. 33,22,69,532/ - UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. A SSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT S OF DEDUCTION U/S 35AC OF THE ACT, DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT ETC. MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, CIT (A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT (A), BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THREE ISSUES NAMELY (I) DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION; (II) DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AND (III) THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE INTEREST INCOME BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ISSUE WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAS OF THIS ORDER. 6. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 4,22,203/ - U/S 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND MENTIONED THAT PARA 4.1 TO 4.6 OF HIS ORDER DEALS WITH THIS IS SUE. EXPLAINING THE ABOVE AND GIVING THE FACTS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AND PUT TO USE CERTAIN MACHINERY IN THE LATTER HALF OF THE PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR AND CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 50% OF THE APPLICAB LE RATE OF DEPRECIATION. BALANCE 50% OF THE ELIGIBLE DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND RELIED ON THE BENEFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE A SSESSEE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. 4 COSMO FILMS LTD [2012] 139 ITD 628 (DEL), WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON PROVISIONS AGAINST THE GRANTING OF BALANCE OF DEPRECIATION IN THE LATER YEARS. CIT (A) DISREGARDED THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BY INTERPRETING THE SAID PROVISIONS LITERALLY. CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE TRIBUNALS VIEW THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY AS THEY ARE INCENTIVE PROVISIONS. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THIS REGARD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON H EARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. COSMO FILMS LTD (SUPRA), A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.42 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FOLLOWING HELD PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SAID PORTION THE SAME IS EXTRACTED WHICH READS AS UNDER: .THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED THE BENEFIT AS SOON AS HE HAD PURCHASED THE NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY IN FULL B UT IT IS RESTRICTED TO 50 PERCENT IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF PERIOD OF USAGES. SUCH RESTRICTIONS CANNOT DIVEST THE STATUTORY RIGHT. LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT THAT BALANCE 50 PER CENT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN SUCCEEDING YEAR. THE EXTRA DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) IS AN EXTRA INCENTIVE WHICH HAS BEEN EARNED AND CALCULATED IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION BUT RESTRICTED FOR THAT YEAR TO 50 PERCENT ON ACCOUNT OF USAGE. THE SAID EARNED INCENTIVE MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEA R. THE OVERALL DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 SHALL DEFINITELY NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL COST OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTOMOBILES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND A DEPRECIATION TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT IS GIVEN. GRO UND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SETTLED NATURE OF THE ISSUE AS WELL AS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH AND TO MAINTAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REVERSED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 43,77,226/ - U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE ACT. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MENTIONED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WERE MEANT FOR QUANTIFYING THE DISALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AND 5 EVENTUALLY HE QUANTIFIED THE SAME AT RS.43,77,226/ - . IN THE PROCES S, IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE SATISFACTION BEFORE APPLYING THE SAID PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. BEFORE US , LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE ACTUALLY MADE I N THE GROUP CONCERNS AND THE SAID INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF THE EXCESS FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE IF THE ABOVE FACTS ARE VERIFIED IN DETAIL AND THE DECISIONS P LACED AT SL.NO.1 TO 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT SOME OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. HE FURTHER, MENT IONED THAT GROUND NO.3 IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED SIMULTANEOUSLY. HE MENTIONED THAT GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE INTEREST INCOME AND LD COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE SAID INCOME CONSTITUTES BUSINESS RECEIPTS. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRONEOUSLY TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. ON FACTS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE GRA N TED CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ADVANCES TO THRE E PARTIES AND RECEIVED INTEREST THEREON . HE ALSO BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED INTEREST INCOME AND THEREFORE, ONLY THE NET INCOME SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT. CIT (A) CONSIDE RED THE SAME VIDE PARA NO.8.4 OF HIS ORDER AND HELD THAT SINCE, THE INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED OUT OF FUNDS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN USED FOR THE MAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME . BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE NEED S TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH UNDER SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT AS THE SAME IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE ACT TOO . 11 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 12 . WE HAVE HEAR D BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE REGARDING (I) ABSENCE OF ASSESSING OFFICERS SATISFACTION ABOUT THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND (II) THE INVESTMENT OF FUNDS IN THE GROUP CONCERNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT ON THE SUBSIDIARY CONCERNS AND NOT FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. IT IS ALSO THE 6 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES AND IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS STATED ABOVE, SOME OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON WHICH THE HEAVY RELIANCE IS KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BOTH THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 AND 3, SINCE CONNECTED, SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WANT OF A SPEAKING ORDER ON ALL THE ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IE., ABSENCE OF SATISFACTION AND THE EXISTENCE OF OWN FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT, THE PURPOSE OF PART INVESTMENT IS TO HAVE THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SAID SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES ETC. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMAND BOTH THE GROUNDS (2 AND 3) TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AS DIRECTED ABOVE AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE DECISIO NS RELIED UPON BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE REMANDING PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.5079/M/2013 (A Y: 2009 - 2010) 1 4 . THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 5.7.2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 22, MUMBAI DATED 9.4.2013. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 35A AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,00,000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE REVISED RETU RN U/S 139(5) TO CL AIM SUCH DED UCTION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OUT TO HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUN T THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAYBHARAT CO - OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. ITO (2011) 10 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 717 (ITAT - MUM) AND ALSO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ORISSA RURAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD U/S ACIT, CIR - 1(1)(2012) 17 TAXMAN.COM 186 (ORISSA). 1 5 . THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADJUDICATION OF AN ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT (A) WITHOUT FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE AO . 7 16 . AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED TH AT THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM U/S 35AC OF THE ACT DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REQUESTING FOR REDUCTION OF INCOME . OTHERWISE, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM U/S 80G ON THE SAME AMOUNT AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR REDUCTION ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 25 LAKHS. NO REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AND THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM . F OR THIS , HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LIMITED VS. CIT 284 ITR 32 3. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM AND RELIED ON THE SAID JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LIMITED (SUPRA) AND ARGUE D THAT A FRESH CLAIM CAN BE ENTERTAINED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES WITHOUT REQUIRING A REVI SED RETURN OF INCOME. CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE SAME AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF EMERSON NETWORK POWER INDIA PVT LTD 19 DTR 441 (MUMBAI TRIBUNAL) AND ALLOWED THE SAID ADDITIONAL CLAIM U/S 35AC OF THE ACT. AGGRIE VED WITH THE SAME, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 18 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFOR E US. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON REFERRING TO THE CITED DECISIONS, WE FIND THAT THE MAKING CLAIM FOR THE FIRST TIME THROUGH FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SUCH AS CIT (A), ITAT ETC. THEREFORE, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 9.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AN ORDER AND THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 19 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 T H DECEMBER, 2014. S D / - S D / - ( SANJAY GARG ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 1 1 /12/2014 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI