TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dian branch office of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB, a company incorporated under the laws of Sweden. The Sweden entity is the wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB. 2.1 During the financial year 2007-08, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication International AB had set up a branch office (Research and Development centre) in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Chennai pursuant to the approval of the Reserve Bank of India with the objective of entering into research and development activity in the information technology industry. During financial year 2008-09 and financial year 2009-10, the assessee provided information technology and information technology enabled services from its research and d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statements were audited, the taxable income was determined at Rs. 41,301,488/- whereas in the return filed u/s 139(4) of the Act the income had been disclosed at Rs. 64,731,097/-. The assessee also submitted before the AO that where the tax payer has, out of ignorance or otherwise, failed to make a claim which he is legally entitled to make, it would be the duty of the AO to draw attention of the tax payers to such omission and further when the tax payers itself makes a claim in the assessment proceedings, such claim ought to be considered in determining the taxable income. However, the AO did not accept the assessee's contention and completed the assessment at the income of Rs. 64,731,097/- i.e. at the income at which the return had been f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red back 1,29,70,130 1,23,77,484 Total (A) 4,57,55,748 2,23,26,139 Income under head Capital Gain (B) 1,89,75,349 1,89,75,349 Total Income (A) + (B) 6,47,31,097 4,13,01,488 3.1 The Ld. AR also sought to distinguish between the provisions of section 239 and 240 of the Act pertaining to refunds and submitted that a refund which is validly due to the assessee should not be denied. The Ld. AR also submitted that omissions committed by the assessee should not result in incorrect income being taxed or incorrect tax being levied. It was also submitted that there were genuine causes for filing the return belatedly i.e. the operations of the assessee having been closed and audited financial statements not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... power to consider the revised computation of the assessee when a revised return of income could not be filed due to the reason of the original return of income being filed belatedly; and (ii) whether there can be any redressal to the grievance of the assessee at this stage. As far as the first question is concerned, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) is clear on the point that a fresh claim cannot be accepted by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and we have no reason to hold the view that the AO did not exercise his powers in the correct manner. The Ld. CIT (A), while dismissing the assesse's appeal also accepted the stand of the AO. The AO was bound by the judgment of Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aims 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 matter. The exercise of discretion is entirely different from the existence of jurisdiction. Goetze was confined to a case where the claim was made only before the AO and not before the appellate authorities. The Court did not lay down that a claim not made before the AO cannot 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." 5.1 We further note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India (Supra) itself has clearly stated ....