Appellate authority can entertain an omitted exemption claim on record facts, while verification directions under section 80IB(10) stand.

A claim for exemption concerning alleged agricultural land, though not raised in the original return, was held capable of being entertained in appeal because the relevant facts were already on record; the Tribunal treated the Goetze (India) Ltd. restriction as confined to the Assessing Officer and held that the issue required merits examination, remitting it for fresh adjudication by the first appellate authority after due opportunity. By contrast, a reasoned direction to verify compliance with the built-up area condition under section 80IB(10) was found proper and was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the claim of exemption in respect of alleged agricultural land, raised during assessment proceedings but not in the original return, could be entertained and required examination on merits; and (ii) whether the direction to verify compliance with the conditions of section 80IB(10) required interference.

Issue (i): whether the claim of exemption in respect of alleged agricultural land, raised during assessment proceedings but not in the original return, could be entertained and required examination on merits.

Analysis: The rejection of the claim solely on the ground that no revised return was filed was held to be unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. was confined to the Assessing Officer's powers and did not curtail the appellate authority's jurisdiction. It further accepted that the relevant material was already on record and that a claim not made in the return can still be entertained when the facts necessary for adjudication are available. The Tribunal therefore held that the claim required examination on merits and, in the circumstances, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication by the first appellate authority after affording due opportunity.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): whether the direction to verify compliance with the conditions of section 80IB(10) required interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had issued clear and specific directions to verify whether the flats satisfied the prescribed built-up area condition and had explained why further examination was necessary. It held that those directions were proper and did not warrant interference.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of remand of the agricultural-land exemption claim, while the direction regarding verification under section 80IB(10) was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim not made in the return may still be entertained by the appellate authority and remitted for merits consideration when the relevant facts are already on record, whereas a reasoned verification direction on an unresolved factual condition does not call for interference.

---