IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH

MAHAVIR SINGH, V.P. & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A.M.

Asstt. CIT v. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd.

ITA Nos. 207, 208 and 209/Chny/2020

23 February, 2024

Appellant by: V. Nandakumar, CIT

Respondent by: D. Anand, Advocate

Mahavir Singh, V.P.

These appeals by the Revenue are arising out of different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(i/c), Chennai in ITA No.13/10-11/CIT(A)-4/A.Y. 2008-09, 458/16-17/CIT(A)-4/A.Y. 2009- 10 & 361/13-14/CIT(A)-4/A.Y. 2010-11 dated 11-11-2019 & 05-11-2019. The assessments were framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(3), Chennai for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2010-11 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) vide orders dated 31-12-2010 & 27-3-2013 respectively and by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 2009-10 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 15-3-2016

ITA No.207/CHNY/2020, Assessment year 2008-09

2. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to the order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the claim of assessee i.e., increase in computation of capital loss, claimed at assessment stage only by way of filing a letter instead of revised return of income. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground Nos.2 to 5:-

2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing assessee's appeal without appreciating the fact that the assessee's claim is not regarding any omission of claiming deduction, whose relevent particulars are already disclosed in original/ revised ROI but the assessee's claim is regarding increase in computation of capital loss which has been claimed in assessment stage only which can not be allowed without filing revised ROI as per the provisions of Income Tax Act?

3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing assessee's appeal, without appreciating the Honble supreme Court Judgement in the case of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323(SC) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1528 (SC) wherein it has been held that- an assessee can not amend a return fled by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return?