IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax III, Pune Appellant V/s. Mukund Bhawan Trust , Pune Respondent Mr.Tejveer Singh for Appellant. Mr.Rohan Deshpande i/b. Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for Respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 17th JULY, 2017. PER COURT : 1] present appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2008 09. 2] Mr.Tejveer Singh, learned counsel for Appellant states that appeal involves following substantial question of law; (a) On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was not justified in holding that CIT (Appeals) could exclude deemed Capital Gain Income of Trust from its Total Income even though Assessee Trust had not claimed such exclusion in its Return of Income and no Revised Return had been filed by Assessee Trust. 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2017 08:53:04 ::: osk 52 itxa 60 2015.odt 3] According to learned counsel, Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider judgment of Apex Court in case of Goetze India Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323. According to learned counsel, Assessee cannot raise additional claim except by way of filing revised return. In present case, Assessee had raised additional claim, which is not permissible. dictum of Apex Court in case of Goetze India Limited (supra) has not been considered. Thereby, Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal have arrived at erroneous conclusion. 4] learned counsel for Respondent submits that present issue is no longer res integra and is covered in 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 judgment of Apex Court in case of Goetze India Limited (supra) was also considered. 5] We have considered submissions. genuineness of transactions in question so also its nature is not disputed by 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2017 08:53:04 ::: osk 52 itxa 60 2015.odt Revenue. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that Assessee trust is enjoying exemption of income computable under Section 11(1B) of Act. From perusing Assessment Order, it is apparent that Assessing Officer was satisfied about claim of Appellant that income declared in return under Section 11(1B) was done erroneously, as on this claim made by Appellant during Assessment, no adverse finding has been made. 6] judgment of Goetze India Limited (supra) of Apex Court is referred to by Division Bench of this Court in case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. (supra), wherein this Court has observed that Assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before Appellate Authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims. Appellate Authorities have jurisdiction to deal with additional grounds, which were available when return was filed. In present case also Revenue had not suggested that omission was deliberate or malafide. Gloss been put by this Court in case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. (supra), while interpreting judgment of Apex Court in case of Goetze India Limited (supra). 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2017 08:53:04 ::: osk 52 itxa 60 2015.odt 7] In light of aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises. appeal as such is dismissed. No costs. (A.M. BADAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2017 08:53:04 ::: TheCommissionerofIncome-tax-III,Pune v. MukundBhawanTrust