DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(2), MUMBAI V. PREMIER LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 7290/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3335 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K L KANAK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return
• Section: 32; 11; 14A; 115JB; 32(1)(iia); 139(5)

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 ) D.C.I.T - 3(2)(2) 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. 58, NARIMAN BHAVAN NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 0 21 PAN AAACT5523G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI K.L. KANAK, D.R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI JAYESH DADIA , A.R DATE OF HEARING: 28 .01 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 1 3 .02.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECT IVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 8, MUMBAI FOR A .Y.2012 - 13 AND 2013 - 14, DATED 11.09.2017, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I.T. ACT), DATED 24.03.2015 AND 18.03.2016. AS COMMON ISSUE S ARE INVOLVED IN THE AFOREMENT IONED APPEALS, HENCE THE SAME ARE BEING TAKEN UP AND DISPOSED OFF TOGETHER BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE SHALL FIRST ADVERT TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13. THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: P A G E | 2 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A . O TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I. T ACT 1961 TO 2% OF THE EXEMPT INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS, MERELY RELYING UPON APPEAL ORDERS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WITHOUT APPRECIATION THE FACT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE LTD. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND ONWARDS ARE TO BE MADE FOLLOWING RULE 8D(2) OF I . T . RULE 1962? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R. W. RULE 8D TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19,51,247/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATION THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE INVESTMENT YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME WERE MADE FROM NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS ? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD. CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO BOOK PROFIT U/S 11 5JB OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME U/ S 14A OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF THE HON BLE ITAT D BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. RBK SHARE BROKING PVT. LTD. - 37 TAXMAN 128(2013) AND THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE ITAT 'F' BENCH IN THE CASE OF D.C.I.T. CEN. CIR. 18 & 19, MUMBAI VS. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD. (2015) 64 TAXMANN.COM 52 (MUMBAI - TRIB.)/2016, 156 ITD 72 (MUMBAI - TRIB) WHEREIN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R. W. R. 8D IS APPLICABLE FOR C OMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 1 15JB OF THE ACT. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE ASSETS PUT TO USE IN EARLIER YEAR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE THAT ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ONLY IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE NEW MACHINERY WAS ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AND NOT THEREAFTER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND OF WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING OF VARIOUS TYPES OF CNC MACHINES, COMPONENTS OF WIND - MILLS, METRO RAIL BODY FRAMES, GEAR BOX, HOUSING AND OTHER ENGINEERING JOBS HAD E - FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 20 12 - 13 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NI L ON 26.09.201 2. THEREAF T ER, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 19.08.2013 DECLARING BUSINESS LOSS OF ( RS.18, 82,36,000/ - ) . THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER P A G E | 3 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. SEC.143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O INTERALIA MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE : - SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A (AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,81,485/ - SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME ) . RS. 19,51,247/ - 2. DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION RS.1,36,32,835/ - ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT A LOSS OF RS. ( - ) 16,58,43,918/ - . 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SAME. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A HAD CAME UP BEFORE HIM IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12, WHEREIN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR A. Y. 2007 - 08 HE HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A TO THE EXTENT THE SAME WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,81,485/ - IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. IN SO FAR THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE A.O HAD DISALLOWED THE ASSESSES CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,36,32,835/ - UNDER SEC.32(1)(IIA) . THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED A NEW MACHINERY IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A.Y 2011 - 12 , WHICH DURING THE SAID YEAR WAS PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS . AS THE NEW MACHINERY WAS PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS, THEREFORE, AS AGAINST ITS ENTITLEMENT FOR P A G E | 4 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 20% THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID MACHINERY @10%. FURTHER, THE BALANCE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF 10% WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E A.Y 2012 - 13. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION COULD ONLY BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE NEW MACHINERY IS FIRST PUT TO USE, THUS DECLINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION DURING THE YEAR. THE CIT(A) OBSERV ED THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM WAS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF INDIAN WRITING INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 6509/MUM/2012; DATED 19.03.2014) AND THE ORDER S OF THE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. COSMO FILMS LTD. 139 ITD 628 (DEL) AND ACIT VS. SIL INVESTMENT LTD. [ 54 SOT 54 (DEL) ] , THUS FOLLOWED THE VIEW THEREIN TAKEN AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL C LAIM OF DEPRECIATION UNDER SEC.32(1)(IIA) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. 5. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF SHOWN THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A AT RS.1,81,485/ - IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME , HENCE IT COULD NOT NOW CLAIM THAT THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO RESTRICTED UPTO THE AMOUNT OF THE EXEMPT INCOME . IN SO FAR THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SEC.3 2 (1)(IIA) ON THE MACHINERY WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD . D.R THAT THE ENTITLEMENT OF AN ASSESSEE TOWARDS CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS ONLY IN CONTEXT OF NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT WHICH WAS ACQUIRED AND INST ALLED DURING THE YEAR AND COULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE LD. D.R TAKING US THROUG H THE FACTS RELEVANT TO P A G E | 5 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED THE NEW MACHINERY IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y. 2011 - 12. IT WAS SUBMITTE D BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PUT TO USE THE NEW MACHINERY FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y 2011 - 12, THUS IT HAD CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @10%. THE LD. D.R SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED THE FULL ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @2 0% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, THEREFORE, HE HAD WHIMSICALLY CARRIED FORWARD AND CLAIMED THE BALANCE 10% DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. D.R OBJECTED TO THE CLAIM OF THE BALANCE ADD IT IONAL DEPRECIATION BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD WRONGLY ALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT THE ENTITLE MENT OF AN ASSESSEE TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS TO BE CONFINED TO THE YEAR IN WHICH IT HAD ACQUIRED AND INST ALLED THE NEW MACHINERY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD OFFERED A DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.1,81,485/ - UNDER SEC. 14A IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT HAD WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A R.W. RULE 8D AT RS. 21,32,732/ - , AND HAD AFTER CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF R S.1,81,485/ - WHICH WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME HAD MADE AN ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.19,51,247/ - . WE FIND THAT IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT AS ITS DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION AMOUNTED TO RS.5 , 000/ - , HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A BE RESTRICTED TO THE SAID AMOUNT . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) AFTER NECESSARY DELIBERATIONS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. P A G E | 6 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. 14A TO THE AMOUNT OF RS, 1,81,485/ - THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING OF THE EXEMPT INCOME CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE EXEMPT INCOME ITSELF. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT S OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (DEL) AND CHEMINVEST LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 2 015) 378 ITR 33 (DEL). HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HA D OFFERED A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,81,485/ - UNDER SEC.14A , THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAD IN ALL FAIRNESS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE UPTO THE SAID AMOUNT. WE THUS NOT FINDING ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE HAD RESTRICT ED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,81,485/ - OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, UPHOLD THE SAME TO THE SAID EXTENT. THE G ROUND S OF APPEAL NO. 1 & 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R THAT THE CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE A.O TO THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SEC. 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME UNDER SEC.14A. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE S PECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD . (ITA NO. 502/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 68/DEL/2012; DATED. 16.06.2017 (SB). W HEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6.22. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLA NATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) , IS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE COMPUTATION AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962. WE HAVE PERUSED THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT AS THEREIN HELD, THE A.O P A G E | 7 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. WHILE COMPUTING THE BOO K PROFIT UNDER SEC. 115JB SHALL NOT MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SEC. 14A IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE S PECIAL BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER SEC. 14A IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SEC. 115JB OF THE I.T ACT. WE THUS UPHOLD THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) TO THE SAID EXTENT. . THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8 . WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SEC. 32(IIA) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS , IT STANDS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED AND I NSTALLED A NEW MACHINERY IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y 2011 - 12 AND THE SAME WAS PUT TO USE FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING THE SAID YEAR . AS THE NEW MACHINERY WAS PUT TO USE FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y 2011 - 12, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIME D ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @10% DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAD CLAIMED THE BALANCE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 10% DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I. A.Y 2012 - 13 . THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.32(1)(IIA) OF THE I.T. ACT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS TO BE A LLOWED @ 20% OF THE ACTU AL COST OF MACHINERY OF PLANT IN THE YEAR IN W HICH IT HAD BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AND COULD NOT BE SPILLED OVER TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THUS DECLINED TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION @ 10% AMOUNTING TO RS.1,36,32,835/ - THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PUT TO USE THE MACHINERY FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR I. E. A.Y. 2011 - 12 , HENCE THE P A G E | 8 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME WAS CLAIMED PARTLY IN THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR AND PARTLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE A.O. THE A.O HELD A STRONG CONVICTION THAT IF THE NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY IS PUT TO USE FOR A PER IOD OF 180 DAYS IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS ACQUIRED THE N THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 10%. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE A.O CONSTRUING THE SCOPE OF SEC. 32(1)(IIA) WHICH ENVI SAGED THE ENTITLE MENT OF AN ASSESSEE TOWARDS CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION , OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED , THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 10 PERCENT. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O . I N ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE ISSUE BEFORE US THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SEC. 32 TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON ARE CULLED OUT AS UNDER: SECTION 32 (1 ) IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF - (I) BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE, BEING TANGIBLE ASSETS; (II) KNOW - HOW, PATENTS, COPY RIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE, BEING INTANGIBLE ASSETS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1998, OWNED, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINE SS OR PROFESSION, THE FOLLOWING DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE AL LOWED - (I) IN THE CASE OF ASSETS OF AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE ACTUAL COST THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; (II) IN THE CASE OF ANY BLOCK OF ASSETS, SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE THEREOF AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED: PROVIDED (A) & (B) P A G E | 9 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE AN ASSET REFERR ED TO IN CLAUSE (I) OR CLAUSE (II ) OR CLAUSE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND IS PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH A SSET SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO FIFTY PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR AN ASSET UN DER CLAUSE (I) OR CLAUSE (II) 1 OR CLAUSE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE: PROVIDED ALSO & EXPLANATION 1 TO EXPLANATION 5** (II A) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT (OTHER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT), WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALL ED AFTER THE 31S T DAY OF MARCH, 2005, BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING OR GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION O, POWER, A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO TWENTY PER CENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHA1JB ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (II). ADMITTEDLY, THE PURPOSE OF AFFORDING BENEFIT TO AN ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL D EPRECIATION UNDER SEC.32(1)(IIA) WAS BACKED WITH AN INTENT TO ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIALIZATION I.E. EITHER BY SET TING UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT OR BY EXP ANDING A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT BY PURCHASING AND INSTALLING NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT AND PUTTING THE SAME TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. WE FIND THAT AS PER SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 32(1) THE ENTITLEMENT OF AN ASSESSEE TOWARDS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN A CASE WHERE A NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT ACQUIRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS PUT TO USE FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO 50% FOR THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR THE SAID ASSET UNDER CLAUSE (IIA) OF SEC. 32(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING AVAILABLE IN THE STATUTE FROM WHERE IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE DISENTITLED FOR CLAIMING THE BALANCE 50% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION I.E. 10% IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION MADE AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD PUT TO USE THE NEW MACHINERY FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING A YEAR, WOULD BE DIVESTED OF ITS ENTITLEMENT TO CLAIM THE BALANCE 10% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. OUR AFO RESA ID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT O F THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT, MADURAI , VS. T.P. TEXTILE S (P) LTD. P A G E | 10 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. (2017) 79 TAXMAN.COM 411 (MADRAS) AND THAT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RITTAL INDIA PVT. LTD. (2 016) 380 ITR 423 (KAR ) . WE THUS BE ING OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO INFIRMITY ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,36,32,835/ - , UPHOLD HIS ORDER TO THE SAID EXTENT. THE G ROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. 9. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. A.Y.2013 - 14 ITA NO. 7314/MUM/2017 10. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14. THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A . O TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I. T ACT 1961 TO 2% OF THE EXEMPT INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS MERELY RELYING UPON APPEAL ORDERS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WITHOUT APPRECIATION THE FACT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE H ON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE LTD. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND ONWARDS ARE TO BE MADE FOLLOWING RULE 8D(2) OF I . T RULE 1962? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,13,000/ - MADE BY A.O. U/S 14A OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATION THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE INVESTMENT YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME WERE MADE FROM NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN DELETIN G THE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO BOOK PROFIT U/S 1 15JB OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME U/S . 14A OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT D BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO V S. RBK SHARE BROKING PVT. LTD. - 37 TAXMAN 128(20 13) AND THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE ITAT F BENCH IN THE CASE OF D.C.I.T. CEN. CIR. 18 & 19, MUMBAI V S. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD. (2015) 64 TAXMANN.COM 52 (MUMBAI - TRIB.)/2016, 156 I TD 72 (MUMBAI TRIB . ) WHEREIN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R. W. R. 8D IS APPLICABLE FOR COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115J B OF THE ACT. P A G E | 11 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE ASSETS PUT TO USE IN EARLIER YEAR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE THAT ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ONLY IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE NEW MACHINERY WAS ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AND NOT THEREAFTER. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO CONSIDER TH E SECOND REVISED CLAIM PERTAINING TO BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 544.20 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 07.03.2016 WHEN IN FACT THE CLAIM WAS MADE BEYOND THE PERIOD STATED U/S 139(5) AND WAS ONLY BY WAY OF A LETTER DETAILING REVISED COMPUTATION. 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE SECOND REVISED CLAIM PERTAININ G TO BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 544.20 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 07.03.2016, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE F ACT THAT IT THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IT WOULD RESULT IN THE ASSESSED INCOME BEING LOWER THAN THE RETURNED INCOME AND THUS IGNORING THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT, BY CIRCULAR NO.549 DATED 31.10.1989? 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 11. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD E - FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 ON 30.09.2013, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.NIL. THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2). 12. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O INTER ALIA MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES: SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W.RULE 8D (AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,81,000/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME) RS.20,13,000/ - 2. DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION RS.1,40,94,128/ - APART THEREFROM , THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.544.20 LACS THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS P A G E | 12 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. BEFORE HIM. THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HENCE, AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) THE SAME COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAIS ED EXCEPT FOR BY WAY OF FILING OF A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE . 13. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTION S ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PERSUADED TO ACCEPT TH E SAME AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL . 14. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 4 IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE THE SAME AS WERE THERE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2012 - 13 VIZ. ITA NO. 7290/MUM/2017. INSOFAR, THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) TO THE A . O TO CONSIDER THE SECOND REVISED CLAIM PERTAINING TO BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.544 .20 LACS THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONCERNED , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY SUCH CLAIM IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, HENCE, THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THE LD. D.R RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) . APART THEREFROM, THE LD. D.R ALSO TOOK SUPPORT OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 516, DATED 15.06.1988. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT IN THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR NO.516 IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ASSESSED AT A FIGURE LOWER THAN THE RETURNED INCOME. IN SUM P A G E | 13 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R THAT IN CASE IF THE AFORESAID FRESH CLAIM RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED TH E N THE SAME WOULD RESULT TO ITS INCOME BEING ASSESSED AT A FIGURE LOWER SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER THAN THE RETURNED INCOME. 15. PER CONTRA, THE LD. A.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT S AMOUNTING TO RS.544.20 LACS WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT AS THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS BASED ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, HENCE THE CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT A FRESH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION CAN BE VALIDLY RAISED IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS LONG AS THE SAME DO ES NOT INVOLVE ANY NEW FACTS, THE LD. A.R RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS (P) LTD. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOM). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINING WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHT HAD RAISED A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.544.20 LACS HAD DIRECTED THE A.O TO CONSI DER THE SAME. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN SO FAR THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED , WE FIND THAT AS THE ISSUE AND THE FACTS INVOLVED THEREIN REMAIN THE SAME AS WERE THERE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y. 2012 - 13 IN ITA NO. 7290/MUM/2027, THUS OUR ORDER PASSED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE GROUND OF APPEA L NO. 1 AND 2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR DISPOSING OFF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 FOR THE P A G E | 14 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE G ROUND S OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED IN TERMS O F OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 17. AS REGARDS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN REMAINS THE SAME AS WAS RAISED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IN ITS APPEAL FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y. 2012 - 13 IN ITA NO. 7290/MUM/2017, THUS OUR ORDER PASSED WHILE DISPOSING OF T HE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR DISPOSING OFF THE GROUND OF APPEA L NO. 3 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE G ROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 18. AS REGARDS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY US WHILE DISPOSING OF F THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 , THUS OUR ORDER PASSED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR DISPOSING OFF THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORE SAID OBSERVATIONS. 19. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE SECOND REVISED CLAIM PERTAINING TO BAD DEBT AMOUNTING TO RS.544.20 LACS THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CO URSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE A LETTER DATED 07.03.2016 HAD RAISED A FRESH CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBT S RS.544.20 LACS. HOWEVER, THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR AN ASSESSEE TO RAISE A CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME , EXCEPT BY P A G E | 15 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. WAY OF FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, THUS DECLINED TO ALLOW RAISING OF THE SAID CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) BEING OF TH E VIEW THAT AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS (P) LTD. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOM) THE ASSESSEE WAS WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHT IN RAISING THE FRESH CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON WHICH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY WAY OF A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, THUS DIRECTED THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE KEEPING IN VI EW THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD VS. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 39 7 (SC) AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 12/ 20 16, DATED 30.0 5 .2016 . 20. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ARE PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD (201 2 ) 349 ITR 336 (BOM) HAD OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE A . O IS NOT ENTITLED TO GRANT A DEDUCTION ON THE BASIS OF A LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RETURNED FILED, HOWEVER , THE A PPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO CONSIDER SUCH CLAIM AND TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY IF A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FI ND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD ARRIVED AT THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) . WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT AN ADJUDICATION ON ITS CLAIM OF BAD DEBT AMOUNTING TO RS. 544.20 LACS ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS WHICH WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD, HENCE AS PER THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AS , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO INFIRMIT Y DOES EMERGE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD DIRECTED THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE SAID CLAIM P A G E | 16 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD VS. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 12/2016, DATED 30.0 5.2016 . WE THUS FINDING OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A), UPHOLD HIS ORDER TO THE SAID EXTENT. THE G ROUND S OF APPEAL NO. 5 AND 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US ARE DISMISSED. 21. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI S MISSED. 22. THE APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 I.E ITA NO. 7290/MUM/2017 AND A.Y.2013 - 14 I.E ITA NO. 7314/MUM/2017 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 3 . 02.201 9 S D / - S D / - ( G. MANJUNATHA) ( RAVISH SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 1 3 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 9 PS. ROHIT / 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 P A G E | 17 ITA NOS. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 AYS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD.