M.V.R. Prasad, AM - (1.) THIS appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 27-2-1992 for the assessment year 1989-90. The grounds taken read as follows :- "The Assessing Officer, while making summary assessment under section 143(1)(a) had adjusted the following deduction claimed by the Appellants. JUDGEMENT_11309_TLIT0_19970.htm The appellants had asked for rectification under section 154 on the ground that only mistakes apparent from the record can be made while preparing summary adjustment sheet under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The appellants are entitled and were in fact allowed such benefits in their own assessments in the immediately preceding assessment years. In fact the deduction under section 10-A was in continuation of identical relief allowed in previous year. The Assessing Officer refused to carry out the rectification. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - VI, Bombay upheld the Assessing Officer's order. The appellants submit that under section 143(1)(a), only those deduction, allowance or relief shall be disallowed, which are prima facie inadmissible. Prima facie would mean something which is apparent on the face of it, self evident, does not need any scrutiny. Adjustment to the returned income under section 143(1)(a) cannot be made on a debatable issue, especially in a case where such relief has been allowed to the appellants in the previous years. The appellants therefore pray that the order of the Assessing Officer be set aside and the demand for tax (including additional tax) be squashed."
(2.) For the previous year ended 31-3-1989, the assessee filed a return of income on 30-12-1989. The Assessing Officer processed the return under section 143(1)(a) and inter alia, he made the following two additions : JUDGEMENT_11309_TLIT0_19971.htm He accordingly levied additional tax also in respect of the above additions. The assessee approached the Assessing Officer for deletion of the above two items under the provisions of section 154. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that deduction under section 10A in respect of the Kandla Export Zone was claimed only on estimate basis. Similarly, the Assessing Officer mentioned that investment allowance was claimed only on estimated basis and so, he rejected deletion of the two additions. It may be observed that in the intimation sent under section 143(1)(a), the reason given by the Assessing Officer for making the addition of investment allowance was that the requisite details were not filed and that the allowance was claimed on estimate basis. The CIT (Appeals) agreed with the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer and upheld the additions.
(3.) BEFORE us, the learned counsel for the assessee firstly mentioned that deduction under section 10A was quantified by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 2,10,87,000 in the regular assessment and this is much higher than the deduction claimed by the assessee. It is also claimed that once an addition made in the intimation sent under section 143(1)(a) is deleted in the regular assessment, additional tax has also to be correspondingly deleted/reduced in view of the provisions of section 143(1A)(b). It is also claimed that even in respect of the investment allowance, requisite relief had been granted in the regular assessment though what was granted was relief under section 32AB and not under section 32A. Even in the return filed by the assessee, it was specifically mentioned that it retained the option of claiming deduction undersection 32AB and not under section 32A. In this context, our attention has been invited to the letter dated 27-12-1989 accompanying the return of income in which it was mentioned as follows :- "2. Claim for relief under section 32A : In preparing the enclosed Return of income, the Company has claimed investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 @ 20% additions to Plant and Machinery. The requisite reserve has also been created in the accounts. The company is in the process of making detailed calculations to be able to assess the impact in terms of sub-section (8C) of section 32A. It, therefore, reserves its right to revise the claim before completion of assessment, to opt for the more advantageous of the two, namely investment Deposit and Investment Allowance. The additions to Plant and Machinery during the period for which the enclosed Return of income is prepared are Rs. 3.70 crores. 3. Exemption under section 10A of the Income-tax Act : The company is entitled and has claimed exemption under section 10A of the Income-tax Act in respect of Profits from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Unit in Kandla Free Trade Zone. Detailed working are being prepared on the basis of the enclosed accounts and will be submitted soon." The learned counsel for the assessee pleaded that the Assessing Officer is not correct in making the impugned additions under section 143(1)(a) simply on the ground that the claims were made either on estimate basis or the requisite details were not available. What can be added under the provisions of section 143(1)(a) are only prime facie inadmissibles. A deduction cannot be denied or an addition made on the ground that complete evidence in support of the claim was not enclosed with the return.;