TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en done on the basis of working provided by the assessee himself which was also accepted by Ld. CIT (A)- XV while disposing the appeal of the assessee for AY 2006-07." 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pesticides, insecticides and agro chemicals. First of all, Assessing Officer (AO) examined R&D expenditure. AO observed as under :- "During the course of assessment proceedings, it is observed that the assessee company has claimed deduction u/s.80IB of the I.T. Act to the extent of Rs.11,16,97,684/-. The deduction has been claimed for its units at Samba & Udhampur, Jammu. The assessee has filed copy of Form 10CCB to justify the claim of deduction. The assessee has other units at Chopanki, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan) & Dahej, (Gujarat). The assessee was, therefore, asked to furnish the unit-wise accounts. From the unit-wise accounts produced by the assessee, it is observed that the assessee has allocated the expenses between both the units, but the entire R & D Expenses has been claimed in Chopanki & Dahej units for which deduction u/s. 8OIB of the I.T. Act is not available. Therefore, the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 1,48,01,3931- comes to Rs.37,00,348/- 3.4 Keeping in view of the above facts and after verification of the details, I hereby hold that the 25% of R & 0 expenses be allocated to Samba & Udhampur Units in their sales ratio and accordingly the deduction claimed UIS 80-IB is reduced by Rs. 9,23,1651- (30% of Rs.30,77,215/-) Rs.6,23,134/- (100% of Rs.6,23,134/-) respectively., 3.5 Therefore, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB is reduced as under:- Deduction Claimed u/s.80IB- of the I.T. Act Rs.11,16,97,684/- Less: Claim reduced (As discussed above) Rs. 15,46,299/- Deduction u/s.80IB of the I.T. Act allowable Rs.11,01,51,385/- The deduction u/s.80IB of the I.T. Act is allowed to the extent of Rs.11,01,51,385/- as against the deduction of Rs.11,16,97,684/- claimed in the return. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for initiating penalty proceedings within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961." 6. Thereafter, AO noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee company vide its letter dated 05.12.2014 filed a revised computation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, wherein the assessee company has treated the Excise & Interest refunds as revenue receipts and duly accepted by A.O. while completing the assessment. Similarly, the allocation of expenses incurred at H.O. was allocated to exempt unit in their sales ratio and accepted in earlier years while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I T Act. However, the assessee company has now modified/reduced the allocation of expenses to exempted units out of amount incurred by the H.O. to the tune of Rs...,55,24,817 & Rs. 49,92,345 originally allocated to Samba & Udhampur units respectively, treating as uncommon expenses and having no nexus with the exempt units . 4.4. In view of above facts, the contention as well as the revised computation filed by the assessee Company at assessment stage is not acceptable, being beyond statutory period allowed under the law for revising the Return of Income. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR (323) has held that the tax payer was not correct in amending original return by modifying the same at assessment stage without revising the return of income within permissible one as per law. Hence m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsidies were claimed right from the beginning as part of income of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is based on interpretation of law regarding refunds on account of excise duty allowed to the units in backward areas. The appellant has drawn my attention to the Industrial Policy of J&K and the benefits allowed to the industries in that states. The idea to develop industries in such backward areas is designed keeping in mind the public interest. The appellant has relied on various case laws in which the subsidies claimed by such units have been treated as capital receipts. They have cited following decisions:- > CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC); > Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K); > Vinod Kumar Jain vs. ITO, Jammu Special Bench, Amritsar (ITAT); > CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (Bom. HC). In these grounds of appeal the appellant has claimed excise duty refund as capital receipts instead of the revenue receipts considered to be so in original return of income. I agree with the argument of the appellant that the excise duty refund is a capital receipts and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pport of the provisions that assessee's claim deserves to be allowed. 11. First of all, we note that ld. CIT (A) has erred inasmuch as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra) which is fully applicable on the facts of the case wherein proper and due revised return was held to be sine qua non for acceptance of the revised claim and it was clearly held that ld. CIT (A) has no power to make any such concession stop. However, in the same order, it was held that the order in this case does not impinge upon the powers of the ITAT to admit and adjudicate upon grounds raised otherwise then by proper revised return. In accordance with the decision, we direct that the revised claim is to be admitted and adjudicated upon by the AO. However, we note that in the assessment order framed qua deduction under section 80IB, AO only dealt with and allowed the claim and discussed on merits only that aspect of claim under section 80IB which were mentioned in the original claim. However, as regards the revised claim, the merits have not been gone into by the AO and he has rejected the claim as unadmitted. On the other hand, ld. CIT (A) has admitted the claim and ....