TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in not entertaining the claim of the appellant for deduction of service tax of Rs. 40,82,852 under section 37 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the said claim was not made in the return of income. It is prayed that the Honorable Tribunal be pleased to admit the aforesaid claim and adjudicate on its deductibility on the merits of the case or, in the alternative, direct the lower authorities to admit the said claim and adjudicate on its deductibility on the merits of the case. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or substitute all or any of the aforesaid ground of appeal." 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. The ld. Counsel submits that the NFAC had fell in serious error in not entertaining the additional claim made during the course of assessment proceedings placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) since the said decision was distinguished by several High Courts including the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, 349 ITR 336 (Bom.), there is no bar on the part of the appellate authority to entertain the additional claim in the absence of any statutory provisions. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection to remit the matter back to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mitesh Impex 367 ITR 85 held that the income tax proceedings cannot be treated as adverse proceedings and income should be computed in accordance with the provisions of law and further held that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not put any fetters on the powers of Appellate authorities in entertaining a new claim. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are extracted below: "33. In case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court distinguished the judgment in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) on the ground that the same pertained to the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Act to entertain a point of law for the first time and commented that such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return was filed. 36. The Delhi High Court once again in recent judgment in the case of CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 129 observed that the Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not a technical one as to what is required to be determined in taxable income. In that sense assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. With these observations Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal reversing the decision of the assessing officer rejecting the claim of the assessee on the ground that no revised return was filed. 37. In case of CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.), Full Bench of this Court held that merely because a ground has not been raised tho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome." 74. Thus, it is clear that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) had no application on the power of the appellate authorities in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, 349 ITR 336 (Bom.), decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (supra). Therefore, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the claim of assessee. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings of CIT(A). We do not find any merits in grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue, hence ....