Question before the High Court was “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that as the Appellant had not excluded or reduced lease rentals from the depreciation offered to tax while filing the return of undisclosed income for the block period it was not entitled to do so later on in view of second proviso to section 158BC of the Act ?”
Court held that, “ We note that the prohibition in Second Proviso to Section 158BC(a) of the Act of filing a revised return of income before the Assessing Officer would not prohibit a Assessee from raising the additional claim before Appellate Authorities as held by this Court in CIT v.Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd( 2012) 349 ITR 336(Bom) (HC) . This on consideration of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT( ) 229 ITR 384 (SC) and Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 284 ITR 323 (SC) . In fact, in Goetze (India) Ltd., the Apex Court after holding that Assessing Officer has no power to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by filing revised return of income by Assessee, clarified that the same would not fetter the appellate authority from entertaining a claim not made before the Assessing Officer” . In the above view, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Appellant Assessee and against the Respondent Revenue.
However, the merits of the claim made by the Appellant in respect of the additional grounds urged before the Tribunal would be required for consideration by the Tribunal.(AY.1985 -86 to 1995 -96) ( ITA No. 118 of 2003, dt. 10.07.2018)