ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Section 80A(5)
provides for denial of deduction under sections 10A, 10AA, 10B, 10BA, or under
any of the provisions of part C of Chapter VIA (‘specified deductions’) of the
Income-tax Act in cases where the assessee fails to make a claim in the return
of income. It is usual to come across cases where assessees have failed to make
a specific claim for deduction in computing the total income and, as a
consequence, in claiming the same in the return of income, or where the
assessees try to cover up the failure by filing a revised return.
This disabling
provision has been introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with
retrospective effect from 1st April, 2003. On introduction of the
new provision, an issue has arisen about the eligibility of an assessee to qualify
for the specified deductions in cases where the assessee has staked the claim
for the specified deduction for the first time in the revised return of income
and such return is filed beyond the time permissible in law but before the
completion of assessment. Conflicting decisions of the Tribunal are available
in the context of the new provision of section 80A(5) on the subject. The ratio
of such decisions is discussed here to highlight the difficulty and the
possible steps that may be taken to mitigate the hardship.
THE
OLAVANNA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK CASE
The issue arose in the case of M/s Olavanna Service Co-op. Bank ITA
No. 398/Coch/2014 dated 21st November, 2017 (unreported-Cochin).
The only issue in the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 was with regard to the
denial of deduction u/s 80P by invoking the provisions of section 80A(5). The
assessee, a co-operative bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969, had failed to file return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11.
The AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) requiring the assessee to file the return
of income but the assessee neither complied with the notice nor filed a return
of income. The AO initiated best judgment proceedings u/s 144 and called for
the details, at which point in time the assessee filed the return of income on
20th March, 2013 which was beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139
and the time limit prescribed in notice u/s 142(1) and, therefore, the AO treated
the same as invalid. On the basis of the material gathered during the course of
assessment, the AO worked out the total income of the assesse from business and
in completing the assessment he disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P by
invoking the provisions of section 80A(5).
On appeal, the CIT(A) relied on the decision of the ITAT, Cochin Bench in
the case of Kadachira Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors., 153 TTJ
(Cochin) 129 wherein it was held that
the assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 80P for the A.Y. 2009-10
if the return of income had not been filed within the prescribed time. The
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as, in his opinion, the factual matrix was the same
in both the cases. Against this order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal
before the Tribunal.
It was contended
before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee that the assessee had filed the
return of income before the assessment proceedings were completed and,
therefore, the return filed should have been considered for the purpose of
making the assessment. It was further submitted that the AO should have
regularised the return of income u/s 148 of the Act, considering the fact that
the proceedings had been initiated on the basis of the reason to believe that
the income had escaped assessment. Further, it was submitted that since the
income had been assessed u/s 144 relying on all the materials, deeds and
documents submitted by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings
in response to the directions of the AO, he should have granted the deduction
as provided u/s 80P of the I.T. Act.
It was explained
that the assessee was a co-operative society coming under the classification of
Primary Agricultural Credit Society or Primary Co-operative Agricultural and
Rural Development Bank carrying on the business of banking, providing credit
facility to its members for agricultural purposes and, therefore, the claim of
exemption u/s 80P should have been allowed and that, even if it was held that
the assessee was doing banking business, proportionate exemption should have
been granted in respect of the agricultural credit facilities given to its
members, instead of disallowing the entire claim of deduction u/s 80P of the
Act.
The Tribunal, on
hearing both the sides, noted that a similar issue had come up for
consideration in the case of Kadachira Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. &
Ors., 153 TTJ (Cochin) 129. The relevant portion of the observations in
the said case were referred to by the Tribunal to hold that unless the Central
Government, by a notification in the official gazette, exempted the
co-operative societies from filing the returns, they had to file the return of
income and the co-operative societies could not have been under the impression
that they need not file their returns of income since their income was
exempted; a statutory liability of filing the return under the Income-tax Act
could not be disowned on the ground of a bona fide impression that no
return of income was required to be filed. It was observed that when the language
of the provision was plain and unambiguous, the language employed in the
statute was determinative of the legislative intent.
On examination of
section 80A(5), the Tribunal noted that the intention of the legislature in
introducing the provision was to avoid multiple deductions in respect of the
same profit and for that the legislature had imposed three conditions for
claiming deduction under sections 10A, 10AA, 10B, 10BA, or under any provisions
of part C, Chapter VIA. One of the conditions required that there should be a
claim made in the return of income. The legislature, in its wisdom, thought it
fit that implementation of these three conditions would prevent misuse and
avoid multiple claims of deduction under sections 10A, 10AA, 10B, 10BA, or under
any provisions of part C, Chapter VIA. A plain reading of the language of
sections 80A(4) and 80A(5) made clear the purpose and intent of the legislature
in a manner that did not require any further interpretation.
The Tribunal
examined the other provisions of the Act that provided for a deduction, to
appreciate the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act, noting that while other
provisions required filing of return u/s 139(1), section 80A(5) did not carry
any such limitation. That being so, even if a return was filed u/s 139(4) it
would not dilute the infraction in not furnishing the return in due time as
prescribed in section 139(1). In section 80A(5) the legislature obviously
omitted to mention the words ‘in due time’. What it says is that where the taxpayer
fails to make a claim in the return of income, no deduction shall be allowed.
It does not say that the return of income shall be furnished in due time. The
return might be filed either u/s 139(1), or 139(4), or in pursuance of a notice
issued u/s 142(1) or 148 of the Act.
On the question of
when there was a failure on the part of the taxpayer to file return of income
within the time limit provided u/s 139(1) or 139(4), or within the time
specified in the notice u/s 142(1) or 148, the Tribunal held that the return of
income filed belatedly could not be treated as return of income.
While dealing with
the contention that when the return was filed before completion of the
assessment proceedings, the AO ought to have issued notice u/s 148 for regularising
the returns, the Tribunal held that the AO had no jurisdiction to issue notice
u/s 148 for assessing the income of the taxpayer. In other words, no income
could be said to have escaped assessment at that point of time. Therefore, the
contention of the assessee that notice ought to have been issued u/s 148 had no
merit at all. It referred to the decision in the case of Sun Engineering
Works (P) Ltd., 198 ITR 297, 320 (SC) to hold that proceedings u/s 147
were for the benefit of the Revenue.
The Tribunal held
that accepting the plea of the assessee that the deduction be allowed even
where no return was filed, would mean that a person who had not filed a return
would get benefit but a person who filed the return but failed to make a claim
either by ignorance or otherwise may not get the benefit at all. The Tribunal
was of the considered opinion that such could certainly not be the legislative
intent.
In conclusion, the
Tribunal held that it was a settled principle of law that in order to avail benefits
under the beneficial provision, the conditions provided by the legislature had
to be complied with, and therefore, the Tribunal was of the considered opinion
that in view of the mandatory provisions contained in section 139(1) r/w/s
80A(5) of the Act, it was mandatory for every co-operative society for claiming
deduction u/s 80P to file the return of income and to make a claim of deduction
u/s 80P in the return itself. If the return was not filed either u/s 139(1) or
139(4), or in pursuance of notice issued u/s 142(1) or 148, the taxpayer was
not entitled for any deduction u/s 80P.
CASE OF KAMDHENU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A similar issue was
examined in yet another case, of Kamdhenu Builders and Developers vs.
DCIT, ITA No. 7010/Mum/2010 (unreported-Mumbai) for A.Y. 2007-08 dated
27th January, 2016. The assessee in that case, a partnership firm,
was engaged in the business of building housing projects and doing real estate
development. The original return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 was filed on 18th
October, 2007 declaring total income from the housing project at Rs.
1,94,12,489. During pendency of assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed
a revised return of income on 31st August, 2009 declaring Nil
income, as the entire profit of Rs. 1,94,12,489 was claimed to be allowable as
deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act. The AO had not allowed the claim
of deduction on the ground that revised return of income was furnished on 31st
August, 2009, which was beyond the date by which the revised return of
income should have been furnished as per the provisions of law u/s 139(5) of
the Income-tax Act. According to the AO, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB was
also inadmissible on account of the provision of law u/s 80A(5) of the
Income-tax Act.
On appeal, the
CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal, on further appeal by the
Revenue, has largely relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and has reproduced
extensively his observations and findings in its order, some of which were as
under:
‘I have circumspected
the entire spectrum and circumstances of the case and considered finding of the
AO, remand report, written submission of the appellant and counter
representation vis-à-vis provision of
law and various decisions of the Hon’ble
ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court relevant to the issue. It transpires from the
assessment order and remand report of AO dated 7th June, 2010 that
Ld. AO had denied or is not willing to give deduction u/s 80IB(10) merely on
the ground of provision of law u/s 80A(5) irrespective of fulfilment of all the
conditions prescribed by the appellant to be entitled for legal claim of
deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. This approach and contention of the Ld. AO
is not tenable because of obvious facts of fulfilment of all the conditions by
the appellant. There is no bar of furnishing of revised return of income u/s
80A(5) and the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, High Courts and Supreme Court over
such issues support the appellant. Under section 80A(5), there is an insertion
of new provision of law with effect from 1st April, 2003 providing
that where the assessee failed to make claim in his return of income for any deduction u/s 10(A),
or section 10(AA), or section 10(B), or section 10(BA), or under any provision
of Chapter VIA under the head in C – deduction in respect of certain income, no
deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder, means there is no restriction
about the revised return of income but
there is a provision of law for claiming such deduction through return of
income only. This provision of law does not limit the date of filing of return
of income to be either as provided u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or 139(5) of the
Income-tax Act. As such, there is no ambiguity regarding interpretation or
understanding of this provision of law. The provision of section 80A(5) does
not provide that return of income through which the deduction has to be claimed
should be filed on or before the due date specified under these sections, it is
worthwhile to mention that whenever legislature intends to provide a law with
reference to the prescribed date of return of income before any specified date, it has
clearly identified and mentioned in expressed word.’
The CIT(A) cited
the examples of section 80AC where a return of income had to be filed prior to
due date as per section 139(1) and of section 54(2) which referred to the date
of furnishing return as per section 139 and also of section 139(3) where carry
forward of loss was permitted only if such return of loss was filed within the
time limit provided by section 139(1). He noted that for claiming any such
deduction under these sections, return of income had to be filed within the
specified date u/s 139(1), whereas u/s
80A(5) there was no such specific limitation of date; therefore, in absence of
any specific limitation of date, the words ‘return of income’ provided u/s
80A(5) had to be construed to mean any such return of income filed prior to the
completion of assessment or a return of income filed during the assessment
proceedings, provided the original return of income was filed within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1).
He further held: ‘Obviously,
appellant complies with the provision of section 80AC of the Income-tax Act.
When the original return of income has been filed well within the due date, the
revised return filed thereafter before the completion of assessment proceedings
or assessment order is passed, it is a valid return of income to be considered
by the Assessing Officer, otherwise every purpose of giving such right to such
appellant would be frustrated. The revised return of income is essential for
removal of defects of original return. It obviously corrects shortcomings from
which it suffered. The revised return must therefore be considered as it was
originally filed vide Thakur Dharmapur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1973) 90
ITR 236, 239 & 240 (All.) and Gopaldas Parshottamdas vs. CIT
(1941) 9 ITR 130 (All.). It is important to point out that when a revised return cures the
defects in the original return and does not obliterate the latter, the
assessment means on the basis of original return of income ignoring the revised
return is liable to be set aside vide CIT vs. Chitranjali (1986) 159 ITR 801
(Cal.). Similar view has also been taken in the case of CIT vs.
Bansidhar Dalal and Sons, 207 ITR 494 (Cal.).’
The CIT(A) observed
that an AO’s functions encompassed power as well as duty to be exercised within
the ambit of law. Relying on various court pronouncements, he observed that it
was only the true and correct total income of every person which was assessable
u/s 4 of the Act and, consequently, the tax collector was rather duty-bound to
collect the legitimate tax due on such total income – neither a penny less nor
a penny more, and the determination / assessment of total income would depend
on the relevant provisions of the Act irrespective of the nature of return
filed by any person; and that an income which was not taxable could not be
taxed merely because the assessee forgot to claim the exemption / deduction
under some mistaken belief. Rather, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to
allow such deduction or exemption to which the assessee was entitled on the
basis of material placed on record. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to
claim deduction if such claim was made by the assessee before the completion of
assessment proceedings. He relied on the findings in the case of Anchor
Pressings (P) Ltd., 161 ITR 159 (SC) in which case the claim for
deduction u/s 80-O was made by the assessee before completion of assessment
proceedings by way of a revised return filed after expiry of period specified
u/s 139(5), it was held that the assessee was entitled to the said deduction in
computing his total income.
The CIT(A) relying
on the cases of Lucknow Public Educational Society, 318 ITR 223 (All.);
Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, 109 CTR (Guj.) 272, 201 ITR 325 (Guj.); and
Berger Paints (India) Ltd., 174 CTR (Cal.)269: 254 ITR 503 (Cal.)
held that the mistake was procedural in nature. The mistake was a technical
breach and the AO was duty-bound to ask for details before denying the claim.
In the instant case, the AO had not asked any information before denying the
exemption for which the assessee was legally entitled. On the other hand, he
had rejected the second return which enclosed the necessary documents for
claiming the exemption.
The CIT(A) noted
with approval the decision in the case of Emerson Network Power India (P)
Ltd., 122 TTJ/27 SOT/19 DTR where it had been held that any claim made
at the time of assessment but not made in the original return, nor made by way
of valid revised return, could not be denied and the AO was obliged to give due
relief to the assessee or entertain its claim if admissible as per law, even
though the assessee had not filed the revised return, and that the legitimate
claim of the assessee should not be rejected on technical grounds. In the
background of all the decisions and facts of the case, the denial of claim of
deduction of the appellant made through revised return of income during the
course of assessment proceedings and well before the passing of assessment
order, according to the CIT(A), was not tenable in the eye of law.
Against the above
order of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal on the
following grounds:
‘(i) On the facts and circumstances of case and in
law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction
u/s 80IB(10) of Rs. 1,94,12,489 in spite of the fact that the claim for
deduction was not made in the original return and was only made in the return
filed for A.Y. 2007-08 on 31st August, 2009, which is not a valid
return in the eye of law and also cannot be treated as revised return u/s
139(5).
(ii) On the
facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing
the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of Rs. 1,94,12,489 as the same is contrary to the
provisions of section 80A(5), effective from 1st April, 2003, which
does not permit allowance of deduction unless the claim for deduction is made
in the return of income.
(iii) On the facts and circumstances of case and in
law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) as the same
only means that deduction can be claimed just by filling revised return u/s
139(5)… has already elapsed, in the course of assessment proceedings, which is
not at all acceptable in the light of amended provisions of section 80A(5),
vide Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2009.’
It was contended by
Revenue that as per the provisions of section 80A(5), effective from A.Y.
2003-04, the assessee was not entitled for deduction unless the claim of
deduction was made in the original return filed by him. On the other hand, the
assessee contended that original return was filed well within the time, and the
revised return was filed to correct the omission in the original return.
Nowhere had the AO alleged that the assessee had not complied with any of the
conditions prescribed for claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10). A legal claim, even
if not made in the original return or even in the revised return, but made by
the assessee before the AO completing the assessment, should be allowed.
The Tribunal in its
considered view noted that section 80A(5) only required filing of return.
Nowhere is it suggested that claim should be made in the original return and
not by way of revised return. It further noted that when the original return of
income had been filed well within the due date, the revised return filed
thereafter, before the completion of assessment proceedings, was a valid return
of income to be considered by the AO; that the assessee had been given
opportunity to file revised return u/s 139(4) for removal of any defect in the
original return; the CIT(A), considering the remand report and the written
submission of the assessee, and after applying various judicial pronouncements,
recorded a finding to the effect that the assessee had filed a revised return
claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) before completion of assessment, and following
the judicial pronouncements laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the case
of Thakur Dharmapur Sugar Mills Ltd. 90 ITR 236, held that
revised return must be considered as it was originally filed; it was the duty
of the AO to allow legal claim if made before him and provided it fulfilled all
the conditions of the claim; nowhere had the AO alleged that the assessee has
failed to comply with any of the conditions of section 80IB(10); the only
grievance of the AO was that the claim was not made in the return filed u/s
139(1); the CIT(A) recorded a finding to the effect that both the original
return was filed well within the time limit prescribed under the law and the
revised return was filed before the AO completed the assessment, that the
assessee had fulfilled all the conditions u/s 80IB(10) and, therefore was
entitled for deduction in respect of the housing project.
The Tribunal noted
that the findings recorded by the CIT(A) had not been controverted by the
Department by bringing any positive material on record and the Tribunal did not
find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the
assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.
OBSERVATIONS
Section 80A(1)
stipulates that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be
allowed the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U of the Act. Section
80A(5) reads as follows: ‘Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his
return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section
10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading
“C Deductions in respect of certain
incomes”, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder’.
On a plain reading
of the provision it is clear that the disabling provision is activated only in
the case of an ultimate failure to make a claim in the return of income. The claims
though not made in the return of income u/s 139(1), would continue to be valid
as long as the claim for specified deduction is made in any of the returns
filed u/s 139(3), 139(4) and 139(5), or even in response to notices u/s 142(1)
or 148 of the Act, subject to compliance of the independent conditions of the
respective provisions under which a specified deduction is being claimed.
In cases where it
is necessary for the taxpayer to file the return of income within a specified
date, the legislature has inserted the words ‘before the due date specified’ or ‘in due
time’ or ‘within the time limit’. In
section 80A(5), the legislature expressly omitted to include the words ‘within
the time limit’ or ‘before the due date specified’ or ‘in due time’. Therefore,
for the purpose of Chapter VIA the legislature intended not to make compulsory
the filing of return of income within the specified time or in due time as
provided in section 139(1) of the Act. In fact, section 80 r/w/s 139(3) of the
Income-tax Act, which provides for carry forward of losses, requires the
taxpayer to file the return of income within the time allowed u/s 139(1).
While introducing
section 80A(5), the legislature was well aware that not only for carry forward
of losses but also for deductions u/s 10A and 10B, the taxpayer has to file the
return of income within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. In
spite of that, the legislature omitted to mention the words ‘within due time’
in section 80A(5). Therefore, the return of income filed within the time limit
provided in section 139(1) or 139(4), or the time specified in the notice u/s
142(1) or 148 can be considered as return of income. The issue, therefore, is
limited to the belated return filed beyond the time limit provided u/s 139(1)
or 139(4), or the time specified in notice u/s 142(1) or 148 of the Act.
The challenge
therefore is in respect of a case where no claim at all is made in the return
of income, or a case where such a claim is made in the return of income that is
filed, not under any of the above referred provisions, but before the
assessment. Nonetheless, such a challenge may also be faced in a case where the
assessee for the first time seeks to claim one of the specified deductions
before the appellate authorities. For brevity’s sake, however, the discussion
here is mainly restricted to a case where a deduction has been claimed in the
revised return of income filed beyond the permissible time but before the
assessment is completed; it is this aspect of section 80A(5) that has been
examined under the conflicting decisions discussed above.
The Notes to Clauses and the Explanatory Memorandum issued at the time of
introduction of the provision by the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2009 are reported in
315 ITR (Stat) 81 and 82. The intention of the legislature in enacting sections
80A(4) and 80A(5) is to avoid multiple deduction in respect of the same profit.
The legislature prescribed three conditions in sections 80A(4) and 80A(5) which
are: (i) If a deduction in respect of any amount was allowed u/s 10A, 10AA
or 10B or 10BA or under provisions of Chapter VIA under the head ‘C – Deductions in respect of certain
incomes’ in any assessment year, then the same deduction in respect of the same
profit & gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of the Act
for such assessment year; (ii) The aggregate deduction under various provisions
shall not exceed the profit and gains of the undertaking or unit or enterprise
or the business profit, as the case may be; and (iii) There shall be a claim
made in the return of income. The legislature in its wisdom thought that
the above three conditions would avoid multiple deductions in respect of the
same profit. One of the conditions prescribed by the legislature in section
80A(5) is to make a claim in the return of income. The Delhi High Court in the
case of Nath Brothers Exim International Limited, 394 ITR 577
examined and upheld the constitutionality of the provision of section 80A(5).
A reference may also
be made to the Circular No. 37 of 2016 dated 2nd November, 2016
clarifying that an increased claim for deduction would not be denied in cases
where such increase is on account of the additions or disallowances made in
assessment of the total income. In this context, a useful reference may be made
to the decision in the case of Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Limited, 307
CTR (Delhi) 97, which, independent of circulars, supports such a claim.
[Also see Influence, 55 taxmann.com 192 (Delhi) and E-Funds
International India (P) Limited, 379 ITR 292 (Delhi).]
In a case where the
assessee cannot claim the deduction for want of positive profits, or where the
electronic return does not permit to record the eligibility to the claim for
deduction, or where a return carries a note, as was in the case of DIC
Fine Chemicals Limited, 202 TTJ (Mum.) 378, highlighting its inability
to claim deduction for want of profits, or the inability to disclose, the
deduction should not be denied; the deduction, in such cases, on assessment,
would be well within the provision of section 80A(5) and would in any case be
saved by the said circular and the said decisions. Such cases cannot be
attributed to the failure of the assessee to claim a deduction in the return of
income.
The issue of the failure to claim a deduction in the return of income has
in fact been examined by the Delhi and the Bombay High Courts in the cases of Nath
Brothers, 394 ITR 577 and EBR Enterprises, 107 taxmann.com 220,
respectively. The Courts, in these cases, have held that not only the provision
of section 80A(5) is constitutional, as it is based on a reasonable
classification, but it also denies the right to claim the specified deduction
in a case where an assessee fails to claim such deduction in the return of income.
The Bombay High Court in the EBR Enterprises case specifically
disapproved the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Madhav
Constructions (Supra) where the Tribunal had held that the deduction
was not limited by the provisions of section 80A(5). The High Court, however,
in the very same Madhav Constructions case had refused to admit
the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal
The case of the
assessee for the claim of deduction is likely to be on a better footing where a
claim is staked before the AO, before completion of assessment, by filing a
return of income, revised or otherwise. Please see Chirakkal Service
Co-op. Bank Ltd., 384 ITR 490 and The Pazhavangadikara Service
Co-op. Bank (Cochin-unreported) ITA No. 200/Coch/2018 dated 9th
July, 2018. In these cases, a claim made vide a belated return of
income, filed in response to notice u/s 148, was allowed as a deduction.
Outside of section
80A(5), it is a settled position in law that an AO is duty-bound to allow all
those deductions, reliefs and rebates otherwise allowable irrespective of the
claim by the assessee. This position of law articulated by the CBDT in Circular
No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11th April, 1955 has been approved by
several decisions of the courts rendered from time to time.
It is also a settled position in law that an assessee is entitled to
place a fresh claim for deduction or relief or rebate before the appellate
authorities, for the first time. Similarly, there is no bar on the AO to
entertain a claim made outside the return of income during the course of
assessment proceedings. Likewise, no special emphasis is required in stating
that a mere failure to stake a claim at a specific point of time or in a
specified format should not result in the frustration of a valid claim.
In view of the overwhelming position in law
in favour of allowance of a lawful claim, we are of the considered view that
the courts should favour an allowance of a lawful claim, even in the cases
where there is an express stipulation for denial of the benefits on the grounds
of non-compliance of a technical requirement, as long as the assessee has
finally corrected himself by compliance before the authorities. The court, in
such cases, should not only entertain the claim but is also obliged to allow
the reliefs to avoid unjust enrichment of the State.
