TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CCB. The AO overlooked the claim of assessee and denied the deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act. The assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the same by observing that:- "5. At the appellate stage, these facts have been disputed. The appellant has relied upon me case of CIT vs. Ramco lnternational (332 ITR 306) (P&H) (HC) to press its claim to be allowed u/s.801B(10). The facts of that case are distinguishable from those obtaining in the case of the appellant. In that case, the assessee has filed Form No.10CCB on the claim agitated by it. The appellant had preferred the claim of deduction before the AO which was not entertained in view of the judgment of Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs.. CIT (284 ITR 323). Similarly, in the case of Sanchit Software arid Solutions (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 404) (Born) relied upon by the appellant is distinguishable from the case of the appellant In that case, the appeal was against the rejection of petition u/s 264 of the Act by the CIT in respect of an application for claim of deduction u/s.10(34)/(10(38). Even in the case of CIT vs Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd in ITA No. 16O/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration. The assessee had not made the claim in the return of income inadvertently and omitted to fill the claim of deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act in the column for Chapter- VIA deduction. The non-filing of the particular form cannot go against the assessee and the entitlement of deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act cannot be denied by the Department and hence, ld.A.R prayed that the issue may be remitted to AO to consider the same. According to A.R., the inadvertent mistake committed by the assessee cannot go against the assessee to deny the legal entitlement of assessee to claim deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act. 5.1 Section 139 of the Act governs the filing of return of income. Sub-section (I) requires the specific category of persons to furnish their return of income, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, by a specified date. The person is also required to provide such other particulars as may be prescribed. Certain exceptions to the general rule have been provided. Sub-section (3), requires a person, who has incurred loss under the head "Profits and Gains of business or profession" or under the head "Capital gains" and claims the loss or any part th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar is merely to emphasise that we should not take advantage of an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax out of him than is legitimately due from him." The above circular has been judicially noted and approved in many judgments and has been relied upon in support of the assessees' claim. 5.4. In Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) the facts are that:- "The assessee filed its return of income on 30-11-1195 for A.Y. 1 995-96. During assessment proceedings it sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter dated 12-1-1988. The deduction as disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provision under the Income-tax Act to make amendment in the return of income otherwise than by revising the return. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessees' claim was allowed. However the ITAT allowed Departments' appeal against the order by CIT(A). The assessee in appeal before the Supreme Court relied upon the Apex Court' decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) to contend that it was open to assessee to raise the points of law even before the Tribunal. The Apex Court held that the claim of deduction not ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made in the return. Both the CIT(A) and the ITAT held that the claim was allowable and allowed the same. 5.8 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision was limited to the power of assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return, and did not impinge on the power of Tribunal. 5.9 In CIT v. Ramco International (332 ITR 306) (P&H) wherein held that when Form No.10CCB filed during the assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee was maintainable. The assessee was not making any fresh claim and duly furnished and submitted the form for claim u/s.80-IB, there was no requirement of filing any revised return. 6. CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Ltd. 303 ITR 256 (Del.) wherein held that the assessee submitted a revised computation of income which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. - 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) wherein held that The assessee filed a ROI in which it omitted to make a claim for payment of SEBI fees. The claim was made by a letter during the assessment proceedings. The AO rejected the claim on the ground that he had no authority to allow any deduction which had not been claimed in the ROI. The assessee raised the claim before the CIT(A) who allowed and this was confirmed by the Tribunal. The department filed an appeal to the High Court claiming that as per Goetze 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee was not entitled to make an additional claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The High Court dismissing the appeal held that:- It is well settled that an assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities, but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion whether or not to permit such additional claims to be raised. It cannot, however, be said that they have no jurisdiction to consider the same. That they may choose not to exercise their jurisdiction in a given case is another ....