TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding the deduction Rs. 1,63,03,900/- in respect of the profit of the power plant U/s 80 IA. The action of the Learned CIT (A)-XVI is illegal and based on surmises and conjectures. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in law in ignoring the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT and another [(1991) 187 ITR 0688 SC] CIT vs. M/s. Purthi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012-TIOL-489-HC-MUM-IT). ACIT vs. M/s. NHK Spring India Ltd. (ITA No.285/Del/2012). 3. That no reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter grounds of appeal before the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT - 284 ITR 323. The CIT (A) has also rejected the claim of the assessee by holding that claim u/s 80IA cannot be allowed by filing a letter during the assessment proceedings. The CIT (A) was also of the view that such claim can be allowed only by way of filing a revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act which the assessee has not done. Similar issue has come up before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd., cited supra, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has sustained the direction of the Tribunal to reconsider the matter on merits by the Assessing Officer. After hearing, we find that the facts of both the cases are similar. The cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) held that Sun F&C Mutual Fund was duly approved mutual fund under Section 10(23D). He observed that dividend from the units of mutual fund was exempt under Section 10 (35)(a). Similarly with regard to the loss, he observed that units of mutual funds were sold and not shares, and therefore, the adverse effect of Explanation to Section 73 was not applicable. Reliance was placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 283 (SC). Inspite of the said observations, the CIT (Appeals) did not allow the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not filed a revised return within the time allowed under Section 139(5) of the Act, but had only filed a revised computation. 5. The tribunal has reversed the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier." 7. Reference was also made to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1991] 187 ITR 688(SC), wherein it has been held as under:- "An appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There is no good reason to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22 reliance placed on Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) by the Revenue was rejected, as the assessee had not made any "new claim" but had asked for re-computation of deduction under Section 80-IB. The said decision may not be squarely applicable but the Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not the technical view as what is required to be determined is the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the law. In this sense, assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi) relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court rejected the plea of the Revenue that t....