TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted vide order dated 25.01.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and in the light of Circular No. 14 (XL-35) of 1955 dated 11th April, 1955 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to consider a claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act made during the assessment proceedings ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in exercise of his plenary/co-terminus powers ought to have entertained the claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act as all necessary facts were already on record ? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er this claim for deduction, on the ground that such claim was not raised by filing the revised returns. 5. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who, called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. This remand report was furnished by the Assessing Officer on 23.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, passed judgment and order dated 31.03.2010, upholding the order made by the Assessing Officer regards non consideration of the claim for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. 6. The relevant portion of appellate order dated 31.03.2010 is to be found in para 6.7, which reads as follows: "6.7 The AO has also mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iming deduction under Section 8OHHC. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the claim of 100% EOU has not been mentioned in the original return. The assessee is entitled for such claim, when the assessee has filed revised return, the assessee has not made this claim. The CIT(A) has not allowed the claim on the decision relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 wherein the Court has held that when an assessee has claimed deduction after return has been filed, the assessing authority has no power to entertain such claim made otherwise than by way of revised return. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that CIT(A) is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by revised return, was admissible. The Revenue had relied upon Goetze (supra) and urged that the ITAT had no power to allow the claim for deduction. However, the Division Bench, whilst proceeding on the assumption that the Assessing Officer in terms of law laid down in Goetze (supra) had no power, proceeded to hold that the Appellate Authority under the IT Act had sufficient powers to permit such a deduction. In taking this view, the Division Bench relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd Vs CIT 199 ITR 351 to hold that the Appellate Authorities under the IT Act have very wide powers while considering an appeal which may be filed by the Assessee. The Appellate Authorities may confirm, reduce, enhanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o adversely affect vested rights existing on the date of enactment of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009. 13. Similarly, at this stage, we are really not required to go into the issue as to whether the activities undertaken by the appellant -assessee amounts to production or not, under Section 10B of the I.T. Act. 14. Both the aforesaid issues along with other issues, which may arise in the context of entitlement of the appellant/assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the I.T. Act will have to be decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which, in our opinion, has undoubted power to consider the claim for deduction in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Pruthvi Brokers (supra). 15. The circumstance ....