TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g income "Nil" income, for the assessment year 2006-07 was filed on 30.10.2006. On 10.01.2007, the respondent assessee filed a revised return declaring income of Rs. 13,95,711/-. We shall be referring to the note appended by the assessee, as to why the revised return was filed, subsequently. During the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee claimed that the revised return, dated 10.1.2007, be ignored and the first return should be treated as the correct and true return. Revised computation was filed. The Assessing Officer did not agree and held that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT [284] ITR 323, the assessee could not have filed the revised computation and said claim could have been only made by way of a re-revised return. Further, the time period for filing of a revised or re-revised return under Section 139(5) had come to an end. Thus, the revised return dated 10.01.2007, could only be taken into consideration. 4. The Assessing Officer thereafter went into the question whether 16,50,000/- shares of Nicholas Piramal India Limited received by way of gift/donation, from The Piramal Enterprises Executives Trust on 03.08.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s binding on the assessee, as the Trust was barred and could not have filed a revised return. The first return was filed on 30.10.06 declaring "Nil" income. Then, the revised return was filed on 10.01.07. The reason given for revising the return, as mentioned was:- "As the foundation is holding equity shares of a limited company it falls within the preview of section 13(1)(d) and has lost the exemption under section 11 to 13 accordingly, a revised return of income has been field on 30.10.2006 vide acknowledgment 02082." 9. The stand of the respondent assessee was that the aforesaid statement was made on wrong legal advice and there was no violation of Section 13(1)(d) in the assessment year in question. Subsequently, during the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee therefore stated that they withdraw their revised return, and would rely upon their original return. Revised computation of income was filed on the said basis. 10. We do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of Goetze (India) Limited case (supra) would be applicable, as the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings, before the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 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." Thus there cannot be any doubt or debate, that the claim and submission could have been raised by the respondent assessee before the appellate authorities. In either way, the issue has been rightly decided in favour of the respondent-assessee. 12. The next issue which arises for consideration is whether or not there was violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act as the assessee was gifted or donated 16,50,000/- shares of Nicholas Piramal India Limited by way of gift, by The Piramal Enterprises Executives Trust on 03.08.05. The Assessing Officer has noted that The Piramal Enterprises Executive Trust had passed the following reso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income- [(a) ...... (b) ...... (c) ...... [(d) income in the form of voluntary contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution.]" 14. Similarly in Section 12(1), it has been stated as under:- "Section 12: Income of trusts or institutions from contributions.- (1) Any voluntary contributions received by a trust created wholly for charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly for such purposes (not being contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution) shall for the purposes of section 11 be deemed to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the provisions of that section and section 13 shall apply accordingly." 15. It may be relevant to state here that in the original return filed on 30.10.06, the respondent assessee had mentioned and given the following note:- "On August 3,2005 the trust has received 1,650,000 shares of Nicho....