Acit New Delhi v. Sh Rahul Juneja Faridabad

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench A New Delhi Before Sh O P Kant Accountant M Ember And Sh K N Chary Judicial Member Ita No 4568 De L 2015 Assessment Year 2011 12 Acit Circle 31 1 New Delhi Vs Sh Rahul Juneja Plot No 29 Dlf Indl Area Phase I Faridabad Pan Aafpj 2485 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh Ravi Kant Gupta Sr Dr Respondent By Sh Rajesh Malhotra Ca Date Of Hearing 21 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29 12 2017 Order Per O P Kant A M This Ap Peal Has Been Preferred By The R Evenue Against The Order Dated 21 04 2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals 11 New Delhi In Short The Ld Cit A For Assessment Year 2011 12 Raising Following Grounds 1 Whether The Ld Cit A Was Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs 36 71 075 Made By The Assessing Officer U S 40 A Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Commission Paid To Non Residents On Which Tax H Ad Not Been Deducted At Source When The Circular No 7 Of 2009 Issued By Cbdt Withdrew Previous Circulars Viz No 23 Of 1969 And No 786 Of 2000 Which Had Given Such Benefit To The Taxpayers And Hence Cit A Had Not Appreciated That Circulars In Force In T He Relevant Assessment Year Have To Be Taken Into Consideration And Should Not Be Ignored As Held By The Honble High Court Of Delhi In Angelique International Ltd Ita No 280 2013 454 2013 2 Whether The Ld Cit A Was Justified In Accepting The Assessees Claim Of Revised Computation Of Capital Gains Without Filing A Revised 2 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 Return As Required U S 139 5 Of The Income Tax Act Particularly In The Light Of The Judgment Of The Honble Supreme Court In Goetze India Ltd Vs Cit 284 Itr 323 3 Th E Appellant Cra Zs Leave To Add Alter Or Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings Before Honble Itat 2 B Riefly Stated Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M S Sukara I E A Propriet Y Concern And Was Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing And Export Of Ready Made Garments The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 03 09 2011 Electronically Declaring Total Income Of Rs 1 51 05 140 The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny And Notice Under S Ection 143 2 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 In Short The Act Was Issued And Complied With In The Assessment Completed Under Section 143 3 Of The Act On 27 01 2014 The Assessing Officer Made Certain Additions Disallowances And Assessed The Total Income At Rs 1 88 21 220 Aggrieved The Assessee Filed Appeal Bef Ore The Ld Cit A Who Partly Allowed The Appeal O F The Assessee Aggrieved The R Evenue Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Raising The Grounds As Reproduced Above 3 The G Round No 1 Of The Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs 36 71 075 Under Section 4 0 A Ia Of The Act For Non Deduction Of Tax At Source Tds On Commission Payments To Non Resident Located Outside India 3 1 The Facts Qua The Disallowance Are That Out Of The Total Commission Of Rs 36 71 0 75 Made To Foreign Agents An Amount Of Rs 30 55 801 Was Received By The Foreign Agents Abroad Out Of The Sale Proceeds And T He Remaining Commission Of Rs 6 15 274 Was Remitted From India To The Foreign Agents The Contention Of The Ld Assessing Officer Is That No Tax Was Deducted Under Section 195 Of The Act By The Assessee On Said Commission Remitted And Hence The Said Commission Amount Was 3 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 Disallowable In Terms Of Section 40 A Ia Of The Act According To The Assessee Services Were Rendered Outside India And The Commission Was Also Received By Them Outside India And Therefore Income Does Not Arise Under The Provision Of Section 5 2 B Read With Section 9 1 Of The Act And Therefore Ther E Was No Liability To Deduct Tds While Paying Commission To The Foreign Agent S However The Assessing Office R Did Not Accept The Contention Of The Assessee Relying On The Provisions Of Section 5 2 B Of The Act Which According To Him Deals With The Scope Of Total Income Of A Non Resident Including All Income From Whatever Source S Derived The Ld Ao In This R Egard Placed R Eliance On The Decision Of The Authority For Advance R Uling In The Case Of Skf B Oilers And Driers P Ltd Aar No 983 984 Of 2010 Acc Ording To The Assessing Officer The Contention Of The Assessee That Agents Had Rendered Services Outside India For Procuring Orders And Commission Remitted To Them Abroad Was Not Relevant For The Purpose Of Determining Their Income And The Assessee Was Required To Deduct Tds As Per The Provisions Of Section 195 Of The Act Further The A Ssessing Officer Obser Ved That C Irculars No 23 And 78 6 Were Withdrawn By The Central Board Of Direct T Axes Cbdt Vide C Ircular No 7 Of The 2009 Dated 22 10 2009 The Ld Cit A After Considering The Detailed Submission Of The Assessee On The Issue In Dispute Deleted The Dis Allowance With Following Observations 4 1 1 I Have Considered The Detailed Submission Made By The Assessee Judicial Pronouncements Relied Upon By Ld Ar And Observations Of The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Upon Examination Of The Facts As Brought Out In The Order And The Submissions Of The Ar It Is Seen That Assessing Officer Was Not Justified I N Disallowing The Commission Expenses Further The Ld Assessing Officer Was Not Right In Holding That The Commission Payments Are Subject To Rigors Of 9 L Vii Of The Income Tax Act The Withdrawal Of Circular No 23 Of 1969 Will Not Change The Position Of Payment Of Commission Liable To Tax 4 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 Under The Provisions Of It Act Particularly When The Services Were Rendered Outside India Used Outside India And Payments Were Made Outside India In The Absence Of A Permanent Establishment In India Irrespective Of Circular Issued By Cbdt The Question Of Taxability Of Such Commission To Income Tax Has To Be Decided As Per The Provisions Of Section 9 1 Of The Act Such Income Commission In The Hands Of Non Resident Commission Agents Did Not Accrue Or Arise Directl Y Or Indirectly Through Or From Any Business Connection In India Or Through The Transfer Of Capital Asset Situated In India The Provisions Of Sec 9 L Were Hence Not Applicable To Such Payment Of Commission By Appellant To Non Resident Agents And The And Therefore Were Not Taxable In India Accordingly Provisions Of Section 195 Can Also Not Be Invoked In Respect Of Such Payments Made Therefore The Appellant Was Not Required To Make Any Reference To The Assessing Officer For Determination Of Tds Rate U S 195 Of The Income Tax Act 3 2 B Efore Us The Ld Sr Dr Relied On The Order Of The Assessing Officer And Submitted That Order Of The Assessing Officer Might Be Upheld 3 3 On The Contrary Learned Counsel Of The Assessee R Elied On The Finding Of The L D Cit A In Support Of His Contention That Such Commission Paid To Foreign Agent Was Not Income Accrued Arised In India And Therefore It Was Not Liable For Tds In India He Relied On Following Decisions 1 Commissioner Of I Ncome T Ax Vs Eon T Echnology Private L Imited 2011 15 Taxmann Com 391 Delhi 2 Commissioner Of Income Tax I And Angelique I Nternational Ltd 2013 38 Taxmann Com 425 Delhi 3 Ge India T Echnology Centre Private L Imited Vs Comm Issioner Of Income T Ax 2010 193 Taxmann 234 Sc 3 4 We Have Heard The Rival Submission And Perused The Relevant Materi Al On Record We Find That The R Evenue Has Challenged The Finding Of The Ld Cit A Mainly On The Ground That Ld Cit A Has Not Followed 5 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 The Circular In Force During The Relevant Assessm Ent Year According To The Ld Cit Dr T He Circular Was Binding On The Departmental Revenue A Uthorities But We Find That The Ld Cit A Has Relied Mainly On The Decision Of The J Urisdictional High Court As Well As Other High C Ourts Cited By The Assessee Being A First Appellate Authority The Ld Cit A Was Requ Ired To Follow Decision Of The J Urisdictional Tribu Nal As Well As Decision Of The J Urisdictional High Court In Our Opinion The Ld Cit A Has Not Committed Any Error In Following The J Udicial Precedents Available On The Issue In Dispute Ld Cit A Has Held That These Commission Agents Were Not Having Any Business Connection In India Particularly When The Non Residents Commission Agents Are Not Having Any Permanent Establishment In Ind Ia The Ld Cit A Also Rejected The Contention That Commission Payments Were Subject To Rigors Of Section 9 1 Vii Of The Act I E Fee For Technical Services In Our Opinion The Finding Of The Ld Cit A On The Issue In Dispute Is Well Reasoned And No Further Interference Is Required In The Said Finding Of The Ld Cit A Accordingly We Upho Ld The Same The Ground Of The R Evenue Is Dismissed 3 5 The G Round No 2 Of The Appeal Relates To Accepting Claim Of Capital Gains On The Basis Of Revised Computation By The Ld Cit A Without Filing The Revised Return Under Section 139 5 Of The Act By The Assessee The Ld Cit A In Para 4 2 Of The Impugned Order Has Reproduced The Submission Of The Assessee And Relevant Judicial Pronouncement Relied Up On By The Assessee The Ld Cit A Keeping In View The Facts Of The Case And Ratio Of Various Judicial Pronouncement Allowed The Ground Of The Assessee The Relevant Finding Of The Ld Cit A Is Reproduced As A Under 4 2 In The Next Point Of Appeal Ground No 5 To 7 Ld Ar Has Impugned The Addition Of Rs 21 567 Made By The Ao As Short Term Capital Gain Without Giving The Benefit Of Set Off From Short Term 6 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 Capital Loss In This Connection The Submission Of The Ld Ar Are Reproduced Below Facts Of The Case Are That In The Re Turn Of Income Filed For The A Y 2011 12 The Assessee Could Not File The Complete Detail Of Income Loss Under The Head Capital Gain Due To The Reason That The Appellant Did Not Procure Relevant Data Required For Ascertainment Of Total Income Loss Under The Head Capital Gain Therefore Du Ring The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Appellant Vide His Submission Dated 06 12 2013 Filed The Revised Statement To The Extent Of Capital Gain Loss Which Was Not Filed At The Time Of Filing Return For Want Of Data To Be Considered For Correct Ass Essment Of His Income I Short Term Capital Gain Rs 3 59 782 Ii Short Term Capital Loss Rs 10 07 850 Iii Long Term Capital Gain Rs 9 53 510 Iv Long Term Capital Loss Rs 3 294 754 Further In Response To Air The Assessee Vide His Reply Dated 2 7 12 2013 Shown Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs 21 567 With Respect To Transaction Relating To M S Atlas Copco India Limited As Mentioned In The Assessment Order The A O Did Not Did Not Give The Benefit Of Setting Off Of Short Term Of Capital Gain From T He Short Term Capital Loss And Further Denied Benefit Of Carried Forward Of Short Term Capital Loss And Erred In Adding The Undisclosed Capital Gain Of Rs 21 567 Without Taking Into Account The Effect Of Capital Gain Loss Filed By Way Of Statement In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings And Denied The Same Solely For The Reason That The Return Was Not Revised In The Light Of Decision Of The Hon Ble Supreme Court Vide The Decision Of Goetze India Limited V S Cit 284 Itr 323 It Is Submitted That The A O Has Wrongly Denied A Legitimate Claim By Wrongly Applying The Decision Of Hon Ble Supreme Court Vide The Case Of Goetze India Limited It Is Contended That Hon Ble Supreme Court Decision Of Goetze India Limited Would Have Been Applicable Had The Case Of The Assessee Would Not Have Been Under Scrutiny U S 143 3 Of The Act Thus The Ld A O By Misconstruing The Decision Of Goetz Case Erred In Denying The Legitimate Claim Of The Assessee It Is Submitted That Once The Case Is Under Scrutiny The Enti Re Issue Is Open Before The A O Because The Very Purpose Of Assessment Is To Assessee The Correct Income The Correct Income Cannot Be Assessed Without Talking Into Account Legal Provision Enshrined Under The Act In The Instant Case The Assessee In The Original Return Had Already Shown The Partial Income Under The Head Capital Gain Loss As Per Available Data On The Date Of Return And Therefore The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Furnished Only Additional Claim By Way Of Statement To The Extent Of Capital Gain Loss Only With A View To Correct Assessment Of His Income Thus The Ratio Of Goetze India Limited Case Is Not Applicable In The Instant Case Because Of The Distinguishing Facts 7 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 Further It Is Submitted That Had The Case Of Th E Assessee Not Under Scrutiny U S 143 3 Then The A O Would Have Been Right Is Applying The Goetz Case And Not To Give Any Benefit On The Basis Of Data Furnished On The Basis Of Statement Furnished Without Revising The Return But Under The Facts Of Case T He A O Erred In Not Appreciating That Very Purpose Of Assessment Is To Assess The Correct Income A Claim Which Is Legally Allowable Cannot Be Disallowed For The Reason That The Same Was Pointed Out In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings By Way Of Stateme Nt Without Revising The Return Due To The Rejection Of A Legitimate Claim The Correct Income Has Not Been Ascertained In The Instant Case And The Purpose Of Assessment Has Been Defeated Thus It Is Submitted That Goetz S India Ltd S Case Has Been Misund Erstood By The Assessing Officer In Declining To Entertain Any Fresh Claim During A Pending Assessment Under Scrutiny Even In Appeal A Fresh Claim Could Be Admitted By The First Appellate Authority Even As Decided In Jute Corporation Of India Limited V S Cit 187 Itr 688 Sc And National Thermal Power Corporation Limited V S Cit 229 Itr 383 Sc The Hon Ble Pune Bench In The Case Of Dcit V S Lab India Instrument Pvt Ltd 277 Itr At 39 Pune Has Held That Had The Legislature Intended To Disentitle The As Sessee To Make Any Claim Of Deduction After The Expiry Of The Period Specified Under Section 139 5 It Could Do So By Making A Specific Provision In This Regard Therefore In The Absence Of Such Provision The Assessee Was Entitled To Make Any Claim Of De Duction Exemption In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings And Consequently The Assessing Officer Was Duty Bound To Adjudicate Upon Such Claim Even Though It Was Filed After The Prescribed Period Under Section 139 5 The Commissioner Appeals Was Justif Ied In Entertaining Such Claim Of The Assessee The Hon Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income Tax V Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd 303 Itr 256 Wherein The Assessee Filed A Return For The Assessment Year 1999 2000 And During The Assessment Proceedings Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Reducing The Income By Claiming Further Expenses On Account Of Additional Power Cost And Other Expenses In Connection With Failure Of A Transmission Tower The Assessee Later Filed Another Revised Computati On Of Income Claiming Further Deduction On Account Of The Expenses Being The Cost Of Afforestation Of Mines And Maintenance Of Roads The Assessing Officer Allowed The Expenses Claimed In The First Revised Computation Of Income But Disallowed The Expenses Claimed In The Second Revised Computation Of Income Holding Them To Be Of A Capital Nature The Commissioner Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer The Tribunal Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee And Set Aside The Order Of The Commissio Ner On Appeal By The Revenue Contending That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Erroneous And Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue As The Assess Officer Had Accepted The Revised Computation Of Income Without Any Revised Return Filed By The Assessee As Required Under Section 139 5 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 8 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 In This Context The Hon Ble Delh High Court By Dismissing The Appeal Held That The Assessee Had Claimed One Fifth Of The Total Expenditure In The Original Return Of Income By Consi Dering The Balance As Deferred Revenue Expenditure Since There Was No Concept Of Deferred Revenue Expenditure In The Act The Assessee Claimed Deduction For The Whole Amount Of Such Expenditure Within The Year Itself Through Its Letter Further The Asses See Did Not Revise The Return For Which The Time As Prescribed Under Section 139 5 Of The Act Had Expired But Made This Claim During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings And The Assessing Officer Allowed The Claim After Considering All The Relevant Facts And Evidence And Being In Accordance With Law The Assessee Did Not Say Before The Assessing Officer That By Making Such A Claim It Had Revised Its Return And The Original Return Must Be Taken To Have Been Withdrawn The Assessee Also Did Not Say That The Original Return Should Not Be Taken As A Basis Of Assessment What The Assessee Had Maintained Before The Assessing Officer Was That The Original Return Was A Valid Return And It Had Merely Made A Further Claim Of Expenditure Which Was Duly Disclosed In Th E Return Filed Originally But Only A Part Of It Was Claimed As Deductible In The Year Under Consideration And Through Its Revised Claim Only The Quantum Was Enhanced And As Such The Assessee Did Not Make A New Claim The Commissioner Nowhere In His Order S Aid That The Claim Was Wrong Or Not Allowable Legally The Phrase Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue Has To Be Read In Conjunction With An Erroneous Order And Not In Isolation Thus The Commissioner Did Not Say As To How By Allowing The Legiti Mate Deduction To The Assessee A Prejudice Had Been Caused To The Revenue When The Order Was Not Found Erroneous The Commissioner Did Not Acquire Jurisdiction To Revise The Order Of The Assessment Made By The Assessing Officer The Tribunal Further Held T Hat The Provision Of Section 140 C Of The Act Only Requires That The Return Should Be Signed By A Competent Person And No Legal Burden Was Cast Upon The Assessee To Correct The Original Return Only Through A Specified Person The Assessee Had Corrected Th E Claim Allowable To It By Virtue Of The Provision Of Section 37 1 Of The Act On Account Of The Expenditure Which Was Incurred Wholly And Exclusively For Purpose Of Business The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer In Accepting The Revised Computation O F Income Was Not Erroneous And Prejudicial To The Revenue And The Revised Computation Of The Income Had Been Accepted Within The Prescribed Period The A O Failed To Appreciate The Distinction Between Revised Return And A Correction Of The Return If The Assessee Files An Application For Correcting A Return Already Filed Or Making Amends Therein It Would Not Mean That He Has Filed A Revised Return It Will Still Retain The Character Of An Original Return But Once The Revised Return Is Filed The Original Return Must Be Taken To Have Been Withdrawn And To Have Been Substituted By A Fresh Return For The Purpose Of Assessment The Hon Ble Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd V S Ito 3 Itr Trib 754 Mum Wherein The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Claiming Deduction Of Rs 37 90 949 As Bad Debts During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessee By Way Of A Letter Made An Additional Claim Of Deduction Of Rs 50 73 993 As Bad Debts On The Ground That There Was A 9 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 S Hort Claim In The Original Return Of Income The Assessing Officer Denied The Additional Claim Of The Assessee The Commissioner Appeals Relying On The Supreme Court S Decision In Goetze India Ltd S Case 2006 248 Itr 323 Confirmed The Denial Of A Dditional Claim On The Ground That The Assessee Had To File A Separate Revised Return To Make An Additional Claim In An Appeal Along With An Application For Admission Of Additional Evidence The Assessee Contended That The Supreme Court S Decision Did Not Affect The Powers Of The Tribunal To Admit An Additional Ground When All The Facts Of The Case Were On Record The Hon Ble Tribunal Allowing The Appeal Held That It Was Clear From The Decision Of The Supreme Court In Goetze India Ltd 2006 284 Itr 323 That The Powers Of The Tribunal Laid Down In The Case Of National Thermal Power Corporation V Cit 1998 229 Itr 383 Sc Were Not Affected By Its Decision Therefore The Tribunal Has The Power To Admit An Additional Groun D Or Claim Made By The Assessee When All The Facts Are On Record Since The Facts Had Been Brought On Record Before The Assessing Officer In A Letter The Claim Of The Assessee Was Admitted Since Neither The Assessing Officer Nor The Commissioner Appeals Had Considered The Issue On Merits The Matter Was Remanded To The Assessing Officer For Considering The Additional Claim Of Deduction The Hon Ble Mumbai Tribunl Also In The Case Of Naptha Jhakri Joint Venture V S Acit 5 Itr Trib 75 Mum Wherein For Th E A Y 2001 02 Deduction Of Expenditure Incurred On Temporary Structures On Site Was Allowed However For The Assessment Year 2002 03 The Assessing Officer Disallowed Deduction For 5 Per Cent Of Total Expenses Owing To Incompletion Of The Project The C Ommissioner Appeals Directed The Assessing Officer To Allow Deduction In The Subsequent Years On Completion Of The Project In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Claimed That The Amount Disallowed In The Proceedings The Assessee Claimed That The Amount Disallowed In The Preceding Year Be Allowed In The Year Because The Project Had Been Fully Completed The Assessing Officer Relying On The Judgment Of The Supreme Court In Goetze India Ltd S Case 2006 284 Itr 323 Disallowed Deduction On The Ground That The Assessee Failed To File Any Revised Return On Appeal Was Held That The Supreme Court Had Clarified The Position That The Mandate Of The Judgment In Goetze S Case Was Limited To The Power Of The Assessing Authorities And Did Not Impinge On The Power Of The Tribunal Under Section 254 Of The Act If The Revised Return Was Not Filed Or The Time Limit For Filing The Revised Return Had Expired But The Assessment Was Still Pending The Assessee Could Not Be Prohibited From Making A Claim The Order Of The Commissioner Appeals For The Assessment Year 2002 03 Disallowing Deduction Of 5 Per Cent Of The Project Expenses On The Ground That It Was Incomplete And Directin G The Assessing Officer To Allow Deduction In Subsequent Years On Completion Of The Project Had Attained Finality There Was No Reason To Interfere With The Order Of The Commissioner Appeals Because The Assessing Officer Had Been Directed 10 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 To Allow Propor Tionate Deduction Of Expenses To The Extent Of The Completion Of The Project In View Of The Aforesaid T He A O Was Erred In Not Making The Proper Assessment By Disallowing The Benefit Of Setting Off And Carried Forward Of Short Term Capital Loss As Sta Ted In The Assessment Order By Rejecting The Revised Statement Of Capital Gain Loss Furnished In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings 4 2 1 I Have Considered The Submissions Of The Ld Ar And Reliance Placed On Various Judicial Pronouncements And Consi Dered The Order Passed By The Ao Keeping In View The Facts Of The Case And Ratio Of Various Judicial Rulings As Referred Above This Ground Of The Appellant Is Allowed 3 6 B Efore Us The Ld Sr Dr Relied On The Order Of The Assessing Officer And Submitted That Assessee Has Not Revised Its Return Of Income And Therefore Claim Of The Assessee Based On Revised Computation Should Not Be Accepted 3 7 On The Other Hand Ld Counsel Of The Assessee Relied On The Various Decisions Cited Before The Ld Ci T A And Submitted That Finding Of The Ld Cit A On The Issue In Dispute Should Be Upheld 3 8 We Have Heard The Rival Submission And Perused The Relevant Material On Record The Issue In Dispute Involved Is Whether In Absence Of Any Revised Return Of Income Filed The Revised Computation Filed During Assessment Proceedings In Respect Of The Claim Already Made Sho Uld Be Allowed To The Assessee Before The L D Cit A The Assessee Cited Decision Of The Tribunal Pune Bench In The Case Of Dcit Vs Lab In Dia Instrument Private L Imited 277 Itr At 39 Pune In Support Of Its Claim That The Assessing Officer Was Duty Bound To Adjudicate Upon Any Claim Made Even Though It Was Filed After The Prescribed Period Under Section 139 5 Of The Act The Assessee Al So Cited Decision Of The Hon Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income T Ax Vs Bharat Aluminium Company L Imited 303 Itr 256 The Hon Ble High Court 11 Ita No 4568 Del 2015 Observed In The Case That The Assessee Did Not Revise Return For Which Time As Prescribed Under Section 139 5 Of The Act Had Expired But Made Claim During The Assessment Proceeding And The Assessing Officer Allowed The Claim After Considering All The Relevant Facts And Evidence And Being In Accordance With Law The Hon Ble High Court Held That Order Passed By The Assessing Officer In Accepting Revised Computation Of Income Was Not Erroneous And Prej Udicial To The Interest Of The R Evenue The Assessee Cited Few More Judicial Pronouncements On The Issue In Dispute 3 9 In Our Opinion The Ld Cit A Has Adjudicated The Issue In Dispute Keeping In View Of The Above Judicial Pronouncement Before Us Ld Sr Dr Has Not Brought On Record Any Decision Contrary To The Above Decisions In View Of Above We Are Of The Opinion That Order Of The Ld Ci T A On The Issue In Dispute Is Well Reasoned And We Do Not Find Any Error In The Same A Ccordingly We Uphold The Same The Ground Of The App Eal Of The R Evenue Is Accordingly Dismissed 4 Ground No 3 Of The Appeal Being General In Nature We Are Not Re Quired To Adjudicate Upon Specifically And Thus It Is Dismissed As Infructuous 5 In The Result Appeal Of The R Evenue Is Dismissed The Decision Is Pronoun Ced In The Open Court On 2 9 T H Dec 201 7 S D S D K N Chary O P Kant Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated 2 9 T H December 201 7 Rk D T D Copy Forwarded To 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 Cit 4 Cit A 5 Dr Asst Registrar Itat New Delhi