IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.11.2014 CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH T.C.(A).No. 878 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. .. Appellant Vs. Malind Laboratories P. Ltd. (since amalgamated with M/s.Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd.) No.3, Lakshmanan Street T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. PAN: AACCM7929D .. Respondent PRAYER: Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 12.8.2011 made in I.T.A.No.1553/Mds/2010 for assessment year 2007-2008. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) This appeal is filed challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 12.8.2011 made in (2) I.T.A.No.1553/Mds/ 2010 for assessment year 2007-2008, raising following questions of law: (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in having affirmed decision of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who ordered for grant of deduction under Section 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 to tune of Rs.1,56,48,973/-? (ii)Whether on facts and circumstances, Tribunal erred in upholding claim for deduction under Section 80IC of Income Tax Act, when assessee had failed to make claim for same in its return of income nor filed revised return of income, rendering it contrary to decision rendered by Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 284 ITR 323? 2.1. brief facts of case are as under: assessee is company engaged in business of manufacturing and export of pharmaceutical products. For assessment year 2007-2008, assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.1,56,48,973/- under normal computation and claimed that it was liable to pay tax on its book profits under Section 115JB of Act and, accordingly, paid tax. tax under Section 115JB of Act was made after adjusting claim of deduction under Section 80IC of (3) Act against income returned and thereby arrived at Nil income. 2.2. said return filed by assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of Act and Assessing Officer computed tax on total income as declared under normal computation and determined tax payable at Rs.50,67,731/- and ignored computation under Section 115JB of Act. Therefore, appellant filed rectification petition on 28.4.2009 on ground that there was omission to allow their claim for deduction under Section 80IC to tune of Rs.1,56,48,973/- under normal computation and also sought for credit for TDS amounting to Rs.5,12,227/-. Assessing Officer, by order dated 28.1.2010, rejected rectification petition stating that claim under Section 80IC of Act was not made in return. 2.3. Aggrieved by said order, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed appeal and directed Assessing Officer to grant deduction under Section 80IC to tune of Rs.1,56,48,973/-. 2.4. Calling in question said order, department went on (4) appeal to Tribunal. Tribunal, by order dated 12.8.2011, dismissed appeal filed by Revenue holding as under: 9. Further, we also observe that Revenue has not disputed finding of ld. CIT(A) that assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of Act. No material was brought before us to show that assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s.80IC of Act. 10. We are reminded of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Lal Vs. Reva Coal Field Ltd. AIR [1962] [SC] 361 wherein it was held that state authorities should not raise technical pleas if citizens have lawful right and lawful right is being denied to them merely on technical grounds. state authorities cannot adopt attitude which private litigants might adopt. Hon'ble CBDT has also opined in Circular No.14 of 1955 dated April 11, 1965 that if assessee, under mistake, misconception or not being properly instructed is over assessed, authorities under Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. 11. In view of above, we do not find any good reason to interfere with order of ld. CIT(A). It is confirmed. ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 2.5. Assailing said order, Department has preferred this (5) appeal on questions of law, referred supra. 3. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellant and perused orders passed by Tribunal and authorities below. 4. facts of present case make it clear that assessee has filed petition under Section 154 of Act at earliest point of time seeking revision of intimation under Section 143(1) of Act and matter was pursued by assessee diligently even before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). When appeal is continuation of original assessment proceedings, Tribunal was justified in relying upon decision of Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. Reva Coal Field Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 31, wherein it is held that State authorities should not raise technical pleas if citizens have lawful right. Tribunal has rightly observed that authorities under Act are required to ensure that only legitimate taxes due are assessed and collected. Moreover, in respect of very same assessee, for assessment year 2006-2007, Assessing Officer has allowed claim under Section 80IC of Act made by assessee. (6) 5. This Court in Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Tax Case (A) No.916 of 2004, dated 17.9.2014) held that when assessee had given reasonable explanation and supported it with plea of bona fide error, same should be accepted and any decision rendered otherwise will have effect of denying correct tax liability. 6. In case on hand, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) categorically held that assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of Act and same was confirmed by Tribunal. We find no infirmity in order passed by Tribunal warranting interference. 7. For foregoing reasons, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for our consideration and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (R.S.J.) (R.K.J.) 18.11.2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes sasi (7) To: 1. Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench "C", Chennai. 2. Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai 34. 4. Income Tax Officer Company Ward-IV(1), Chennai. (8) R.SUDHAKAR,J. and R.KARUPPIAH,J. (sasi) T.C.(A).No.878 of 2014 18.11.2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Malind Laboratories P. Ltd. (since amalgamated with M/s.Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd.)