TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee claimed further expenses to the tune of Rs.10,40,85,702/- which were erroneously disallowed u/s.37(7) of the Act by the assessee. Thus, the assessee claimed loss of Rs.32,47,63,805/- against the loss claimed in the original return of income. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 23-12-2011 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3), did not consider the additional expenses claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) vide impugned order dated 28-02-2013, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that, for additional claim of expenses filing of revised return is mandatory. In the absence of revised return, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. The assessee has come in second appeal before the Tribunal assailing the order of the CIT(Appeals). 3. Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee had suffered a loss of Rs.32.47 Crores, at the time of filing of return of income, the staff of the assessee-company while preparing computation sheet, erroneously mentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled revised computation of income to claim aforesaid additional loss. The contention of the Revenue is that without filing revised return of income within due date as prescribed under the Act, the assessee cannot claim any expenses/deduction. In support of this view, the CIT(Appeals) has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Limited Vs. CIT reported as 284 ITR 323 (SC) and the DR has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Shriram Investments (supra). In the case of Goetze India Limited Vs. CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the assessing authority is not entitled to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise then by filing a revised return. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Shriram Investments (supra) was dealing with the issue relating to the claim raised through a revised return filed after the expiry of the time given u/s.139(5) of the Act. Aforesaid both the judgments were dealing with a different issue. In the instant case, the assessee had not made any fresh claim. The assessee had claimed certain expenditure allowable u/s.37 which were erroneously left o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ought not be prejudiced. 19. The orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal clearly indicate that both the appellate authorities had exercised their juris-diction to consider the additional claim as they were entitled to in view of the various judgments on the issue, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). This is clear from the fact that these judgments have been expressly referred to in detail by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and by the Tribunal. 20. We wish to clarify that both the appellate authorities have themselves considered the additional claim and allowed it. They have not remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the same. Both the orders expressly direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 40 lakhs under section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, now only to compute the respondent's tax liability which he must do in accordance with the orders allowing the respondent a deduction of Rs. 40 lakhs under section 43B of the Act. 21. The conclusion that the error in not claiming th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs." (emphasis supplied). 23. It is clear to us that the Supreme Court did not hold anything contrary to what was held in the previous judgments to the effect that even if a claim is not made before the Assessing Officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254. 24. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi). The Division Bench, in paragraph 17 of the judgment held that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal making it clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the ....