TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted for hearing. 3. The sole ground of appeal of revenue reads as under: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,26,74,120/- regarding warranty expenses made by the AO by disallowing the additional claim by filing an application made by the assessee during the course of assessment." 4. By preferring this ground of appeal, the revenue challenges the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,26,74,120/- in respect of warranty expenses. Facts in respect of this ground of appeal as noted by the AO at pages 8 and 9 of his order is that the assessee did not claim the deduction of Rs. 12,26,74,120/- in its return of income. However, it cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15-16. However, in this relevant assessment year when the assessee filed the return of income it inadvertently omitted to claim the deduction in respect of the actual payment incurred for warranty expenses to the tune of Rs. 12,26,74,120/- out of such provision made in the AY 2015-16 of Rs. 12,83,74,876/- [which sum was disallowed/added in AY 2014-15]. And, therefore, he prayed before the AO that the amount of Rs. 12,26,74,120/- actually paid by the assessee out of the provision for warranty of Rs. 12,83,74,876/- of the preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2014-15 should be allowed while computing the income for the relevant AY 2015-16. And for consideration of this claim took support of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions which upheld the rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inadvertently omitted to claim the payment for warranty expenses of Rs. 12,26,74,l20 made in assessment year 2015-16 out of provision of Rs. 12,83,74,876 disallowed in assessment year 2014-15. The provision for warranty of Rs. 12,83,74,876 created in assessment year 2014-15 was neither claimed nor allowed in assessing income for assessment year 2015-16. The AR has further submitted that this practice has been consistently followed in past and accepted in our assessment. The AO has not allowed the same while stating that there is no provision in the I.T. Act, 1961, allowing the assessee to make an amendment in the return of income by modifying as application at the assessment stage without revising the return of income. The decision of the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntioned judicial precedents, it is clear from the facts above, that the Appellant has made a genuine mistake and the claim made is a legitimate claim, and not allowing the same will go beyond the provisions of the Income tax Act, as it provides for taxing only the "income" and nothing else. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition. In view of above, this ground of appeal is allowed." 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the assessee has made the payment of Rs. 12,26,74,120/- on account of warranty expenses which fact has been accepted by the AO by observing in his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has held that the AO is not empowered to allow the claim of an assessee if it has not claimed in the return of income or revised return of income. However, it was clarified in the said order itself by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appellate authorities like Tribunal has the power to admit new claims even if not raised in the return of income or revised return of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) has held as under: "The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Incometax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to th....