Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Umaben Seetharam Gannavaram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 665 of 2018 ================================================================ PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 VersusUMABEN SEETHARAM GANNAVARAM ================================================================ Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 26/06/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad “B” Bench, Ahmedabad passed in ITA No.3414/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revenue allowing the deduction by the learned CIT (Appeals), under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law :- “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law while allowing deduction u/s. 10AA through filing application u/s. 154 of the Act, whereas the claim ought to have been made by filing revised return of income, when the claim was not originally made in the return of income filed u/s. 139(1)?” 2. We have heard learned Advocate Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the appellant – Revenue and have considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT as well as CIT (Appeals).appearing on behalf of the appellant – Revenue and have considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT as well as CIT (Appeals). 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present Tax Appeal and as observed by the ITAT and the learned Tribunal, a similar deduction under Section 10AA of the Act was allowed in favour of the assessee for the previous Assessment Year and also for the subsequent Assessment Year. However, in the year under consideration, due to a technical mistake, more particularly, on account of newly launched software of e-filing, a mistake had occurred in claiming the deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. However, immediately the deduction was claimed by way of a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act, which was allowed. present Tax Appeal and as observed by the ITAT and the learned Tribunal, a similar deduction under Section 10AA of the Act was allowed in favour of the assessee for the previous Assessment Year and also for the subsequent Assessment Year. However, in the year under consideration, due to a technical mistake, more particularly, on account of newly launched software of e-filing, a mistake had occurred in claiming the deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. However, immediately the deduction was claimed by way of a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act, which was allowed. C/TAXAP/665/2018 ORDER C/TAXAP/665/2018 ORDER 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, more particularly, when it is not the case of the Revenue that the Assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 10AA of the Act, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error. No substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal and therefore, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. particularly, when it is not the case of the Revenue that the Assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 10AA of the Act, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error. No substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal and therefore, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (M.R. SHAH, J) CAROLINE Sd/-(A.Y. KOGJE, J)