Case Law Details

Case Name : CIT Vs Mukund Bhawan Trust (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Income Tax Appeal No. 60/2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/07/2017
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09
Courts : All High Courts (3796) Bombay High Court (681)

1) The present appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2008- ­09.

2. Mr. Tejveer Singh, the learned counsel for the Appellant states that the appeal involves following substantial question of law;

“(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the CIT (Appeals) could exclude the deemed Capital Gain Income of the Trust from its Total Income even though the Assessee Trust had not claimed such exclusion in its Return of Income and no Revised Return had been filed by the Assessee Trust.”

3] According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Goetze India Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323. According to the learned counsel, the Assessee cannot raise an additional claim except by way of filing a revised return. In the present case, the Assessee had raised additional claim, which is not permissible. The dictum of the Apex Court in case of Goetze India Limited (supra) has not been considered. Thereby, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have arrived at erroneous conclusion.

4) The learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the present issue is no longer res­integra and is covered in the judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 336, in which even the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Goetze India Limited (supra) was also considered.

5) We have considered the submissions. The genuineness of the transactions in question so also its nature is not disputed by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the Assessee trust is enjoying exemption of income computable under Section 11(1B) of the Act. From perusing the Assessment Order, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer was satisfied about the claim of the Appellant that the income declared in return under Section 11(1B) was done erroneously, as on this claim made by the Appellant during Assessment, no adverse finding has been made.

6) The judgment of Goetze India Limited (supra) of the Apex Court is referred to by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. (supra), wherein this Court has observed that the Assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the Appellate Authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims. The Appellate Authorities have jurisdiction to deal with additional grounds, which were available when the return was filed. In the present case also the Revenue had not suggested that the omission was deliberate or malafide. Gloss been put by this Court in case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. (supra), while interpreting the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Goetze India Limited (supra).

7) In the light of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal as such is dismissed. No costs.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25538)
Type : Judiciary (10289)
Tags : high court judgments (4102)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *