TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in the circumstances in not allowing claims made during the course of hearing for exempted income of dividend of Rs. 1487135/- and expenses debited to P & L A/c on account of depreciation on Govt. Securities Rs. 11200000/- to be allowed as exempted income as well as allowable expenses and the same were also dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II Pune. 2. That your appellant prays that he may be allowed to add, to alter or amend the above grounds of appeal." 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is a Co-operative Bank engaged in the business of carrying on banking business. The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is before us in the present appeal. 7. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR argued that claim not made in the original return of income cannot be made for the first time before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, he supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. We heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) had not admitted the additional grounds of appeal nor adjudicated the issues raised in the additional grounds of appeal on merit citing that the issues in the additional grounds of appeal does not emanate from the assessment order placing reliance on the decision of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT, 423 ITR 426 held as follows :- "39. In CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336/208 Taxman 498/23 taxmann.com 23 (Bom), one of the questions of law which came to be framed was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT, in law, was right in holding that the claim of deduction not made in the original returns and not supported by revised return, was admissible. The Revenue had relied upon Goetze (supra) and urged that the ITAT had no power to allow the claim for deduction. However, the Division Bench, whilst proceeding on the assumption that the Assessing Officer in terms of law laid down in Goetze (supra) had no power, proceeded to hold that the Appel....