TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s such. For the assessment year 2008-09, the said Petitioner had filed a return of income on 30th September, 2008 declaring total income of Rs. 7,57,27,294/-. During the period relevant to the said assessment year the Petitioners had carried out activities of development of housing projects. However, for the income arising out of the said business, the Petitioners had not claimed deduction under Section 80-IB (10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in the return of income. The return of income was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, who passed the order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act on 21st December, 2010. Obviously, since the Petitioners had not raised any claim of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, no such claim came up for consideration before the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment proceedings. 2.2. The Petitioners filed the Revision Application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (for short 'CIT') under Section 264 of the Act against the order of the assessment. In such Revision Application, the Petitioners raised the claim of deduction under Section 80-IB (10) of the Act. Since the Revision Application was filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stantial compliance. 3.5. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT 2006 284 ITR 323 SC to contend that even if the claim is not made before the Assessing Officer, can still be sustained before the Appellate authority or the Tribunal. 3.6. Counsel further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer (1981) 7 Taxman 13 (SC) to contend that the statutory provisions of taxing statue, should be reasonably interpreted. 3.7. Counsel pointed out that the Bombay Tribunal in case of Madhav Construction vs. Principal CIT-3, Thane ITA Nos. 33271 to 3276/Mum/2017 has held that the restriction contained in Section 80A (5) of the Act would apply to the Assessing Officer and not to the CIT or the Tribunal. 4. As is well-known, under Section 80-IB (10) of the Act, the Legislature has granted deductions in relation to income arising out of development of housing projects to the assessees the fulfilling conditions contained therein. This provision is contained in Chapter - VI - A of the Act. Section 80A of the Act which is also contained in the same Chapter, pertains to de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se revisional powers in favour of the assessee. In exercise of this power, the CIT may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee, call for the record of any proceeding under the Act and pass such order thereon not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as the thinks fit. Sub - ss. (2) and (3) of Section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under S. 264 (1) (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been subject to an appeal to the Tribunal. Subject to the above limitation, the revisional powers conferred on the CIT under S. 264 are very wide. He has the discretion to grant or refuse relief and the power to pass such order in revision as he may think fit. The discretion which the CIT has to exercise is undoubtedly to be exercised judicially and not arb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax 169 CTR 193. This Court also in case of Danny Denzongpa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (2010) 194 Taxman 415 Bombay, has taken a similar view. 8. However, the Petitioners are faced with the statutory provision contained in Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act. The Petitioners' claim cannot therefore be accepted de hors the said statutory provision and ordinary principle of the wide powers of the CIT exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Act cannot be imported. What Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act mandates is that, if the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under the provisions specified therein, the same would not be granted to the assessee. This condition or restriction is not relatable to the Assessing Officer or the Income Tax Authority. This condition attaches to the claim of the assessee and has to be implemented by the Assessing Officer, CIT or the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be. There is no indication in Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act as to why the restriction contained therein amounts to limiting the power of Assessing Officer but not that of Commissioner. 9. This issue....