2019 (3) TMI 1828

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-11. Since common issue arises for consideration is in all these appeals, we heard these appeals together and disposing the same by this common order. 2. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment after the cancellation of approval granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. counsel, the cancellation of approval was withdrawn retrospectively. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12A of the Act as charitable institution. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the claim of the assessee for exemption has to be ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gard to extension of the period of accumulation under Section 11(3A) of the Act. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld. D.R. submitted that in the original return, the assessee claimed deduction of capital expenditure. The revised return was not scrutinized since the same was filed beyond the stipulated time. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer treated as if the return was not filed. In such a situation, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee was aware of the fact that the capital expenditure was not allowed. Even in the return filed in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, according to the Ld. D.R., the claim was not made, therefore, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome filed consequent to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Apex Court itself in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) found that the power of the appellate authority to consider the additional ground is not impinged. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) as well as ITAT being the appellate authorities can very well entertain the claim. Moreover, the Apex Court itself in the case of CIT v. Shelly Products and Another (2003) 261 ITR 367 found that the assessee can always bring to the notice of the Assessing Officer the material necessary for completing the assessment. In case any claim was not made or any income was wrongly included in the return of income, the same can always be brought to the notice of the assessing authority. 7. In view ....