FACTS
The assessee, a manufacturer of diamond studded gold jewellery having manufacturing unit located in SEZ, filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 30.9.2009. Subsequently, he revised his return of income twice. In all the three returns of income, the assessee did not show any claim for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, even though the total income was shown at Rs. Nil in the original return. Hence, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not allow deduction u/s. 10A of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who called for a remand report wherein the AO submitted that the assessee had been allowed deduction u/s.10A of the Act in AY 2006-07 to 2008-09. Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted the relevant details relating to deduction u/s. 10A which were inadvertently omitted to be furnished int eh appropriate columns of the return of income filed electronically. The CIT(A) was convinced that there was a genuine mistake and accordingly, he directed the AO to allow the deduction.
Aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
HELD
The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act for the year under consideration. The AO did not allow the claim, since it was not claimed in the return of income. However, the conduct of the assessee shows that he assessee had intended to claim the same, but the relevant details were omitted to be entered in the return of income. The Tribunal held that the inadvertent omission so made should not come in the way of the assessee to claim the deduction, which he is legally entitled to. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).
The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.