ITXA1298.13.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1298 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax 10. ... Appellant Vs M/s. Onward E-Services Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & A.K. MENON, JJ. THURSDAY, 16TH APRIL, 2015 P.C. : 1. We have heard both sides. Revenue has filed appeal challenging order of Tribunal dated 6 th June, 2012, which is pronounced in two Income Tax Appeal Nos. 5283/Mum/2011 and 5354/Mum/2011. appeals of Revenue and assessee pertain to assessment year 2008-09. Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing in support of this appeal submits that questions at page 4 of paper-book are substantial questions of law and would arise from Tribunal's SRP 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 29/05/2020 21:42:32 ::: ITXA1298.13.doc orders and findings. 2. In relation to first Question, our attention was invited to paragraphs 3 to 5 of Tribunal order and to urge that Tribunal has not rendered any specific finding, leave alone conclusion that what assessee did was permissible in law. 3. Mr. Tejveer Singh submits that undisputed fact was that assessee filed revised statement of computation of income during course of assessment. In such statement, assessee claimed deduction of Rs.42,44,780/- as against Rs.5,23,458/- claimed in original statement of total income. Assessing Officer denied this request and observed that deduction was not claimed in original return and, therefore, assessee cannot claim any benefit. 4. Mr. Tejveer Singh submits that even though this view of Assessing Officer was not accepted by Commissioner, yet, Tribunal did not express any opinion on Commissioner's conclusions. Therefore, this question and as proposed at page 4 would SRP 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 29/05/2020 21:42:32 ::: ITXA1298.13.doc arise and it is substantial question of law. 5. We are unable to agree with Mr. Tejveer Singh and for more than one reason. Commissioner has found that this is not case of any revised return of income being filed. What was proposed to be revised and corrected is figure or sum in which deduction under section 40(a)(ia) was claimed. That was in sum of Rs.5,23,458/-. That is to be found in statement of total income for assessment year 2007-08. In revised statement of total income, sum of Rs.47,49,080/- was claimed as deduction. assessee explained as to why this revision and correction in figures was made. It was submitted that from original figure of Rs.47,49,080/-, expenses amounting to Rs.42,44,780/- were disallowed since TDS on same was not paid within relevant previous year. That was deposited late. It was paid on 19 th May, 2007 and it is, therefore, in financial year relevant to assessment year 2008-09. If this was sum paid and namely Rs.42,44,780/- during year under consideration, then, deduction should be in this sum. Commissioner found that approach of Assessing SRP 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 29/05/2020 21:42:32 ::: ITXA1298.13.doc Officer was entirely incorrect inasmuch as deduction pertained to assessment year 2007-08 and was claimed on payment basis. relevant claim was filed because of amendment made by Finance Act 2008 to section 40(a)(ia) with retrospective effect from 1 st April, 2005. Commissioner found that it is only revision in claim and figures and not to be confused with revised return of income. Tribunal found that Commissioner's view is supportable and by judgments rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Harayana. Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in case of Goetze India Limited 284 ITR 323 was also referred by Tribunal. reasoning therefore, in paragraph 5 of Tribunal's order is in consonance with legal principles. hypertechnical view being taken by Assessing Officer that both Commissioner and Tribunal concurrently found that that course adopted by assessee was permissible. 6. We do not think that any substantial question of law arises from such possible view and which is taken in backdrop of SRP 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 29/05/2020 21:42:32 ::: ITXA1298.13.doc peculiar facts and circumstances. first question is, therefore, not substantial question of law. 7. Insofar as second question is concerned, it is fairly conceded that two judgments, one rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 and by Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) was party in Income Tax Appeal No.399 of 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/s. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd., decided on 11th July, 2014, concludes issue. That is concluded against Revenue and in favour of assessee. 8. As result of above discussion, both questions are not substantial questions of law and appeal cannot be entertained. same is, accordingly, dismissed without any costs. A.K. MENON, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI , J. SRP 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 29/05/2020 21:42:32 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax-10 v. Onward E-Services Ltd