Ita/306/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tvm v. Kerala State Electricity Board,Tvm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 ITA.No. 306 of 2010() --------------------- ITA.785/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT. ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal No.306 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. We have heard Standing Counsel for the appellant. Appeal is filed against the Kerala State Electricity Board which as of now is astatutory body under the control of the Government. Question raised iswhether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the firstappellate authority allowing respondent to raise a new claim ofdeduction which was earlier treated as prior period expenses by theassessee debiting the Profit and Loss Account for earlier years.However, department's objection is that the claim was not made in theoriginal return, but was claimed in the course of assessment withoutfiling a revised return. Both the first appellate authority as well as theTribunal found that the respondent was entitled to claim of deduction. 2. On going through the questions raised, we find thedepartment's objection is not on merit but on technicality i.e. whetherrevised return is mandatory for entertaining the claim. Since the expenditure referred to is already reflected in the accounts and sincetwo lower authorities found that the claim would be considered onmerits without the assessee filing a revised return, we do not find anysubstantial question of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal.Hence the appeal filed under Section 260A is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms K.SURENDRA MOHANJudge