TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 4 and hence they are rejected as not pressed. Ground No. 6 is premature and hence rejected. Ground No. 5 is consequential and therefore does not require any separate adjudication. What now survive for adjudication are ground Nos. 1 and 2 which read as under : "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not admitting the claim of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act made during the course of the assessment proceedings. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the deduction under section 80-IB of the Act." 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout filing the return of income. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that there being no valid revised return no other deduction including the claim under section 80-IB was allowable. On the merits, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that as additional facts are not on record and the appeal was being dismissed on technical/legal ground, the same were not being adjudicated. 4. Before us, the learned authorised representative for the assessee submitted that it is incorrect to say that the original return was not valid, as not filed in time. He drew our attention to the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. F. No. 220/5/2006-ITA-II dated October 13, 2006 ([2006] 286 ITR (St.) 56) wherein the time-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tmental representative, on the other hand, submitted that section 80AC prohibits claim of any deduction under Chapter VI-A unless it is made through a return of income filed as per the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The learned Departmental representative further submitted that such claim can be made only in the original return. 7. The learned authorised representative, in rejoinder, submitted that the learned Departmental representative cannot argue the points which were not argued before the lower authorities by relying on the section 80AC. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused material on record. The undisputed facts are that the assessee has filed a return of income on December 27, 2006 which is with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich is to be filed within the time. We may further explain that for claiming deduction under section 80-IB, the only condition is that the original return should be filed in time, but the claim need not necessarily be made in the original return, it can be made subsequent thereto also. In Goetze (India) Ltd.'s case (supra), the hon'ble Supreme Court has only considered for claiming deduction before the Assessing Officer, such claim should be made only through the return. But this condition would not be applicable before the appellate authorities. This decision of the Supreme Court was interpreted by the Delhi High Court in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.'s case (supra) as under (page 46) : "In Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) where....