2018 (10) TMI 2053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aimed in the return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated relevant facts include, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Pozzocrete from Fly-Ash. Assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 5,26,13,543/-. During scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of assessee at Rs. 6,57,30,020/-. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of assessee u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act by observing that the assessee is not an infrastructure facility but only a manufacturer of a specialized product Pozzocrete for which fly ash. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. 80IA(4) of the Act when the assessee failed to claim the same in the original return of income filed u/s. 139 of the Act. The assessee has made claim in the revised return after computation of total income. The CIT(A) examined this issue and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Pruthvi brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported as 349 ITR 336 and allowed the appeal of the assessee as per discussion given in para 4.8 of the order of CIT(A). 6. The Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of Assessing Officer and argument/conclusion made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that CIT(A) is an Appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is admissible before me in view of jurisdictional High Court decision in the case Pruthvi brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.(349 ITR 336) wherein it is held interalia as under : "It is well settled that an assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities, but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion whether or not to permit such additional claims 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. Goet....