TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the assessment year 13-14 was filed by the assessee on 30-11-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 74,10,72,040/-. In the said return, no deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act was claimed by the assessee. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 16-3-2016 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 82,99,67,000/- after making various additions / disallowances. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(A). Before the Learned CIT(A), an additional ground was raised by the assessee with respect to claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also furnished additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in support of the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act before the Learned CIT(A) by filing the audit report of the Chartered Accountant in Form No. 10CCB, project wise details of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IA(4) of the Act and sample agreements entered into by the assessee with Central / State Government for infrastructure development. The assessee also filed the detailed written submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rastructural projects undertaken by the assessee is principally upheld by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2016-17 in ITA No. 705 /Del/ 2021 dated 30-11-2022 on merits. Further, he argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Limited reported in 284 ITR 323(SC) does not curtail or affect in any manner the powers of the authorities other than the assessing officer to admit fresh claim as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC limited reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC). He submitted that no tax could be levied or collected by the State or Central Government except by an authority of law by referring to Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Further, he argued that the revenue authorities are duty bound to determine the correct taxable income and consider a legal / legitimate claim of deduction by referring to the Circular No. 14 (XL-35) dated 11-04- 1955. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Sam Global Securities Limited reported in 360 ITR 682 (Del) among other decisions. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act is held to be allowable if the return is filed in stipulated time although without claim of deduction being made in the return. He submitted that similar view was taken by the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Monarch Innovative Technologies private limited reported in 91 taxmann.com 267. He stated that in the present case before us, as the return of income was duly filed by the assessee within time specified under section 139(1) of the Act but no claim was made in the said return for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. With regard to rejection of additional evidences by the Learned CIT(A) on the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is concerned, he submitted that the evidences submitted before the learned CIT(A) were crucial for consideration of the claim of deduction and the same ought to have been admitted by the Learned CIT(A). He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Virgin Securities and Credits private limited reported in 332 ITR 396 (Del) and CIT vs Text Hundred India private limited reported in 239 CTR 263 (Del) for admission of the additional evidences in support of the claim of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim at all was made either in the return filed u/s 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act, then deduction u/s 80IA of the Act shall not be eligible to an assessee. This is what precisely Wipro Ltd decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 446 ITR 1 (SC) held. The Learned AR placed reliance on the provisions of section 80IA(7) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the same speaks about filing of audit report in Form 10CCB within the specified date. This provision was held to be directory in nature by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs G M Knitting Industries P Ltd reported in 376 ITR 456 (SC). But this is a procedural requirement for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and hence held to be directory in nature. The crucial requirement of the section 80A(5) is to make a claim, which is a substantive provision. Hence the same is to be construed as mandatory provision in order to entertain a claim of deduction in respect of certain incomes such as deduction u/s 80IA as is the case in the appeal before us. This view of ours is further fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd reported in 446 ITR 1 (SC). The Learned AR placed heavy reliance on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent facts, which in our considered view, is mandatory requirement, rendering the claim of deduction of the assessee to be not admissible. 10. The reliance placed by the Learned AR on the co-ordinate bench decision of Delhi Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2016-17 is also factually distinguishable in view of the fact that in Assessment Year 2016-17, the claim of deduction was indeed made by way of revised return. Hence the substantive provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act had been complied with by the assessee in that year. Hence the reliance placed on Tribunal decision for Asst Year 2016-17 does not advance the case of the assessee herein for the year under consideration. 11. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Single Member Bench of Nagpur Tribunal in the case of Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vrund Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit vs ITO reported in 147 taxmann.com 449 dated 7- 10.2022 by the Learned AR before us. In this case, the assessee co- operative society did not file any return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, that assessee filed computation of income in which it claimed deduction under section 80P of the Act, which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch. Further they had merely relied on the decision of Nagpur Tribunal supra and decided in favour of the assessee. Hence we hold that the reliance placed by the Learned AR on the decision of Surat Tribunal supra does not advance the case of the assessee herein. 13. In view of our aforesaid observations, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was duly justified in rejecting the additional ground raised by the assessee with regard to the claim of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act by placing reliance on the provisions of Section 80A(5) of the Act, which language is plain, clear and unambiguous. Further, since the claim of deduction per se has been sought to be dismissed by rejecting the additional ground, the admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules does not arise as those additional evidences are relevant only if the claim of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act is to be entertained at the appellate stage. Hence, the action of the learned CIT(A) in rejecting the additional evidences filed by the assessee is held to be in order. Accordingly, the reliance placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Virgin Securitie....