Compiled by Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate
Government of India
Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes
New Delhi, 25th June, 2021
Government grants further extension in timelines of compliances.
Also announces tax exemption for expenditure on Covid treatment and ex-gratia received on death due to Covid
A. Tax exemption
- Many taxpayers have received financial help from their employers and well-wishers for meeting their expenses incurred for treatment of Covid-19. In order to ensure that no income tax liability arises on this account, it has been decided to provide income-tax exemption to the amount received by a taxpayer for medical treatment from employer or from any person for treatment of Covid-19 during FY 2019-20 and subsequent years.
- Unfortunately, certain taxpayers have lost their life due to Covid-19. Employers and well-wishers of such taxpayers had extended financial assistance to their family members so that they could cope with the difficulties arisen due to the sudden loss of the earning member of their family. In order to provide relief to the family members of such taxpayer, it has been decided to provide income-tax exemption to ex-gratia payment received by family members of a person from the employer of such person or from other person on the death of the person on account of Covid-19 during FY 2019-20 and subsequent years. The exemption shall be allowed without any limit for the amount received from the employer and the exemption shall be limited to Rs. 10 lakh in aggregate for the amount received from any other persons.
Necessary legislative amendments for the above decisions shall be proposed in due course of time.
B. Extension of Timelines
In view of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, taxpayers are facing inconvenience in meeting certain tax compliances and also in filing response to various notices. In order to ease the compliance burden of taxpayers during this difficult time, reliefs are being provided through Notifications nos. 74/2021 & 75/2021 dated 25th June, 2021 Circular no. 12/2021 dated 25th June, 2021. These reliefs are:
- Objections to Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and Assessing Officer under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for which the last date of filing under that section is 1st June, 2021 or thereafter, may be filed within the time provided in that section or by 31st August, 2021, whichever is later.
- The Statement of Deduction of Tax for the last quarter of the Financial Year 2020-21, required to be furnished on or before 31st May, 2021 under Rule 31A of the Income-tax Rules,1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), as extended to 30th June, 2021 vide Circular No.9 of 2021, may be furnished on or before 15th July, 2021.
- The Certificate of Tax Deducted at Source in Form No.16, required to be furnished to the employee by 15th June, 2021 under Rule 31 of the Rules, as extended to 15th July, 2021 vide Circular No.9 of 2021, may be furnished on or before 31st July, 2021.
- The Statement of Income paid or credited by an investment fund to its unit holder in Form No. 64D for the Previous Year 2020-21, required to be furnished on or before 15th June, 2021 under Rule 12CB of the Rules, as extended to 30th June, 2021 vide Circular No.9 of 2021, may be furnished on or before 15th July, 2021.
- The Statement of Income paid or credited by an investment fund to its unit holder in Form No. 64C for the Previous Year 2020-21, required to be furnished on or before 30th June, 2021 under Rule 12CB of the Rules, as extended to 15th July, 2021 vide Circular No.9 of 2021, may be furnished on or before 31st July, 2021.
- The application under Section 10(23C), 12AB, 35(1)(ii)/(iia)/(iii) and 80G of the Act in Form No. 10A/ Form No.10AB, for registration/ provisional registration/ intimation/ approval/ provisional approval of Trusts/ Institutions/ Research Associations etc., required to be made on or before 30th June, 2021, may be made on or before 31st August, 2021.
- The compliances to be made by the taxpayers such as investment, deposit, payment, acquisition, purchase, construction or such other action, by whatever name called, for the purpose of claiming any exemption under the provisions contained in Section 54 to 54GB of the Act, for which the last date of such compliance falls between 1st April, 2021 to 29th September, 2021 (both days inclusive), may be completed on or before 30th September, 2021.
- The Quarterly Statement in Form No. 15CC to be furnished by authorized dealer in respect of remittances made for the quarter ending on 30th June, 2021, required to be furnished on or before 15th July, 2021 under Rule 37 BB of the Rules, may be furnished on or before 31st July, 2021.
- The Equalization Levy Statement in Form No. 1 for the Financial Year 2020-21, which is required to be filed on or before 30th June, 2021, may be furnished on or before 31st July, 2021.
- The Annual Statement required to be furnished under sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Act by the eligible investment fund in Form No. 3CEK for the Financial Year 2020-21, which is required to be filed on or before 29th June, 2021, may be furnished on or before 31st July, 2021.
- Uploading of the declarations received from recipients in Form No. 15G/15H during the quarter ending 30th June, 2021, which is required to be uploaded on or before 15th July, 2021, may be uploaded by 31st August,2021.
- Exercising of option to withdraw pending application (filed before the erstwhile Income Tax Settlement Commission) under sub-section (1) of Section 245M of the Act in Form No. 34BB, which is required to be exercised on or before 27th June, 2021, may be exercised on or before 31st July, 2021.
- Last date of linkage of Aadhaar with PAN under section 139AA of the Act, which was earlier extended to 30th June, 2021 is further extended to 30th September, 2021.
- Last date of payment of amount under Vivad se Vishwas(without additional amount) which was earlier extended to 30th June, 2021 is further extended to 31st August, 2021.
- Last date of payment of amount under Vivad se Vishwas (with additional amount) has been notified as 31st October, 2021.
- Time Limit for passing assessment order which was earlier extended to 30th June, 2021 is further extended to 30th September, 2021.
- Time Limit for passing penalty order which was earlier extended to 30th June, 2021 is further extended to 30th September, 2021.
- Time Limit for processing Equalisation Levy returns which was earlier extended to 30th June, 2021 is further extended to 30th September, 2021.
(Surabhi Ahluwalia) Commissioner of Income Tax (Media & Technical Policy) Official Spokesperson, CBDT
Shyam Sunder Jindal Vs. The ACIT, Circle-30, New Delhi vide ITA No. 6295 to 6298/Del/2017
We have considered rival submissions and the decisions relied upon by both the parties. We have already deleted the addition made in assessment year 2006-07 and also in assessment year 5 2007-08, therefore, on this ground itself the addition made by the assessing officer is liable to be deleted. Independent thereof, we note that in the instant case, the addition of Rs.1,64,962 has been made purely on notional basis on the premise that the assessee: (a) had alleged foreign bank account, which itself is under serious challenge; and (b) on such bank account, assessee earned interest @ 4%. We are of the view that the case of the assessee is on a much better footing vis-à-vis the facts in judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld.Counsel inasmuch as in the aforesaid cases there was at least some basis of taxation of notional amount/ interest, which was never realized/ received by the assessee, but in the case of the assessee, the so-called amount of interest brought to tax is totally without any basis and is clearly hypothetical/ imaginary.Since there is no evidence that the assessee actually received interest on the disputed deposit and just by figment of imagination it has been concluded that the assessee earned interest on such deposits @ 4% p.a., the impugned addition on account of notional ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 interest, has, even on merits, been rightly deleted by the CIT(A). For the said cumulative reasons, the Revenue’s appeal on this ground stands dismissed.” 9. Since, the matter has been adjudicated on merits, any adjudication of the technical grounds taken up by the assessee would academic in nature, hence not resorted to.” 5. Since the addition has been deleted, the penalty so levied must also be deleted. Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus, meaning thereby, that in case the foundation is removed, the super structure falls. Since the foundation [addition] has been removed, the super structure i.e. 6 penalty must fall. We, accordingly, direct the ld. CIT(A) to delete the penalty so levied. 6. In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 6295 to 6298/DEL/2017 are allowed.
Nirmal Gupta Vs. Pr. CIT-9, New Delhi vide ITA No. 108/Del/2018
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR pointed out certain documents such as Return of Income filed by the assessee on 02.09.2015, Notice dated 01.08.2016 under Section 143(2) issued by ITO, Ward 72(5), Letter dated 20.12.2016 filed by the assessee pointing out the correct jurisdiction of the DCIT, Circle 25(2) and not that of ITO, Ward 72(5). Besides this, the Ld. AR also pointed out notice dated 10.03.2017 under Section 143(2) issued by DCIT, Circle 25(2) and the letters dated 27.03.2017, 13.04.2017 addressed by the assessee to DCIT, Circle 25(2). It is pertinent to note that the notice under Section 143(2) can be issued after an income tax return has been filed but within a period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. Thus, the first notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 01.08.2016 which by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer and jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued the notice on 10.03.2017 which is beyond the limitation period as per the statutory provisions of the Act. Thus, the notice is time barred and hence, the assessment itself becomes void-ab-initio. Besides this, the proper jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in the present case is that of DCIT, Circle 25(2) as the assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 was proceeded before the said Assessing Officer in assessee’s case. There was no change of jurisdiction sought by the Revenue as per Section 124 read with Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, on the point of jurisdiction relating to issuance of notice also makes the notice under Section 143(2) void-ab-initio. These aspects were not challenged by the assessee as the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Nil and the assessee therefore, never challenged the assessment order at any stage. As the assessment itself 6 ITA No. 108/Del/2018 becomes bad in law and therefore, the order of the Principal CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 itself becomes nullity as there is no assessment order in the eyes of law. Therefore, the additional grounds are allowed. 9. Despite the technical aspects wherein the assessee succeeds in her additional grounds, we have also looked into the merits of the case and it is found that letter dated 13.04.2017 filed by the assessee along with the documents pertaining to purchase and sale of shares, purchase of Euro Gold, Purchase of Channel Nine Shares, Copy of purchase bills & contract notes for Euro Gold, Statement of Accounts in Amrapali Trading and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Copy of Purchase Bill for Channel Nine Shares dated 22.03.2013 & Transaction Statement from Adroitt Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. were produced before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the notice which was issued by the Principal CIT stating therein that the Assessing Officer failed to verify the genuineness of the exemption of Long Term Capital Gain claim of Rs. 49.28 lakhs approximately on the sale of shares of M/s Channel – Nine and also that of the Assessing Officer failed to enquire about the persons who have purchased the above mentioned shares at a high rate of Rs. 439 per share, appears to be incorrect. The Principal CIT has not at all taken into consideration the reconciliation in respect of Long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer in the instant case has verified all the aspects and therefore, the view taken by the Principal CIT is only a second view which is not permissible under Section 263 of the Act. It is the settled proposition of law that for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263, the twin conditions, namely, the order is erroneous and the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be satisfied. In the instant case, since the Assessing Officer has called for various details and after verification of the same has passed the order, therefore, the same cannot be treated as erroneous, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra). Hence, the Assessment order though does not sustain in eyes of law in light of the 7 ITA No. 108/Del/2018 defective notice under Section 143(2), the proceedings under Section 263 also does not survive on merit. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi Vs. Satellite Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 6423/Del/2019
In view of the aforesaid facts and after considering the submissions of the assessee, we dismiss the appeal of Revenue subject to a caveat that in case the dispute relating to tax arrears for the captioned assessment year is not Date of Hearing 21.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 21.06.2021 2 ITA No. 6423/Del/2019 ultimately resolved in terms of the aforesaid Act, the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Modern Papers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-34(3), New Delhi vide ITA No. 3931/Del/2018
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT vide order dated 04.09.1990, 1991 AIR 241 held that the Hon’ble Apex Court while adjudicating on the issue of additional ground held that the declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is coterminus with that of the Income Tax Officer. If that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the Income Tax Officer. No exception could be taken to this view as the Act does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of appellate power. Even otherwise an Appellate Authority while hearing appeal against the order of a subordinate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitation if any prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provisions to the contrary the Appellate Authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that if the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is satisfied he would be acting within his jurisdiction in considering the question so raised in all its aspects. Of course, while permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in accordance with 6 law and reason. He must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The satisfaction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rigid principles or any hard and fast rules can be laid down for this purpose. 11. The similar proposition has reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar issue in the case National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 229 ITR 383. The Apex Court reiterated that “6. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.I.T. this Court, while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that an appellate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There is no good reason to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case has to be considered on its own facts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also.” 12. While dealing with the case of NTPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court enunciated that it would not be proper if the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and it amounts to taking too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. Thus, we find that the Courts have always upheld the powers of the Tribunal or rather directed the Tribunals to assess the correct tax liability of the assessees. In case the assessee has wrongly or owing to lack of knowledge pays tax on an item of amount which is not taxable in accordance with the provisions of the Income 7 Tax Act, the assessee would have every right to pray for right taxation of his taxable income. 13. Thus, it can be said that the claim of the assessee has to be considered based on the fact that whether the amounts in question or taxable or not, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee has suo-moto offered the amounts to taxation already. For determination of the issue whether the Assessing Officer or the Tribunal empowered to consider the plea of the assessee, the provisions of the Act are examined. 14. Year-1989 -- The provision sub-section (3) was substituted by the following provision by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1st April 1989, which read as follows "(3) On the day specified in the notice issued under sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Assessing Officer may require on specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in writing, make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee, and determine the sum payable by him on the basis of such assessment." 15. On perusal of the above provision, it is noted the Legislature specifically excluded the A.O.'s power to determine sum 'refundable' to the assessee on completion of assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Act. The intention of the Legislature in introducing amended Section 143(3) was explained by the CBDT in Circular No. 549 dated 31.10.1989 wherein the Board stated that under the amended provisions, the Assessing Officer in an assessment order passed under section 143(3) cannot assess income at a figure lower than the returned income, nor can loss be assessed at a figure higher than the returned, and therefore no tax paid with reference to the returned income can now be refunded to the assessee on completion of regular assessment. 16. Year 1998 -- The above provision was later on substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act of 1998 and the power to determine 'sum refundable' to the assessee by the Assessing Officers in the proceedings u/s 143(3) was reinstated by the Legislature. The relevant provision, as it stands now reads as under: "(3) On the day specified in the notice issued under sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Assessing Officer may require on specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he 8 has gathered, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in writing, make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee, and determine the sum payable by him or refund of any amount due to him on the basis of such assessment." 17. The CBDT Circular No. 772 dtd. 23.12.1998-- explaining the above substituted provision of Section 143(3) explicitly stated that under the erstwhile provisions, there was no provision to issue refund and the Assessing Officer was only empowered to determine the sum payable by the assessee, but under the amended provisions the A.O. is empowered to provide for determination of sum payable by the assessee as well as the refund of any amount due to him. 18. On harmonious reading of these provisions & after giving due consideration of the legislative history of Section 143(3) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Britannia Industries Ltd in ITA No. 03/2013 vide order dated 13.07.2017 held that even if it (accepting the fresh claim of the assessee) results in an assessment below the returned income and consequently refund arises, it is valid as per law. 19. The Hon’ble High Court has also held that there is no conflict between the Gurjargravures Private Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd. In the former a claim for exemption was for the first time put up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who rejected the claim as not made before the I.T.O. This rejection was set aside by the Tribunal with direction upon the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain the question of relief under section 84, claimed by the assessee in that case. The Supreme Court held that it was not competent for the Tribunal to have done so. The distinction between the two authorities eliminating any conflict is that in Gurjargravures Private Ltd. the competence of the Tribunal to direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain a claim not made before the I.T.O was found to be lacking. In Goetze (India) Ltd. the Supreme Court held that the assessing Authority's power was limited but not that of the Tribunal in the context of dealing with a claim of the assessee therein not put forward before the Assessing Officer. In Gurjargravures Private Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal itself did not consider to allow the claim for relief. 20. Further, the CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35 dated 11.04.1955) wherein it is held as under: "3. Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a tax payer 9 where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the ITA No.679/Kol/2016 Smt. Sharmila Kumar, AY- 2011-12 department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessees on whom it is imposed by law, officers should" 21. Further, we also note that the relief sought cannot be refused merely because the assessee has omitted to claim the relief as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anchor Pressings P. ltd. Vs. CIT 161 ITR 159. Hence, keeping in view the entire facts on record, the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of allowability of the claim, we hereby hold that the assessee is eligible to raise the issue at appellate levels. 22. Having said so, the issue whether the Excise Duty subsidy and interest subsidy can be treated as capital receipt is examined. The similar subsidy has been allowed as capital receipt and also the issue of computation of profits u/s 115JB has been examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 3837/Del/2016 in the case of M/s DhanukaAgritech Ltd. wherein the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The same is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Further, the matter stands squarely covered by the order of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shri Balaji Alloys Vs CIT 333 ITR 335. The snippets of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue is as under: “The assessee, pursuant to the New Industrial Policy announced for the State of J&K, received excise refund and interest subsidy, etc which it claimed to be a capital receipt. In the alternative, it was claimed that the same was eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB. The AO, CIT (A) and Tribunal rejected the claim and held the receipts to be revenue on the ground that the subsidy (i) was for established industry and not to set up a new one, (ii) it was available after commercial production, (iii) it was recurring in nature, (iv) it was not for purchasing capital assets and (v) it was for running the business profitably. On appeal by the assessee, the High Court (333 ITR 335) reversed the lower authorities and held as follows: (i) The ratio of Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 (SC), Ponni Sugars 306 ITR 392 (SC) and Mepco Industries 319 ITR 208 (SC) is that to determine whether incentives & subsidies are revenue or capital receipts, the purpose underlying the incentives is the determinative test. If the object of the subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt is on revenue account. On the other hand, if the object of the subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee to set up a new unit 10 or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was on capital account. It is the object for which the subsidy/assistance is given which determines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form or the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant; ii) On facts, the object of the subsidy scheme was (a) to accelerate industrial development in J&K and (b) generate employment in J&K. Such incentives, designed to achieve a public purpose, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of assesses alone. It cannot be construed as mere production and trade Incentives; (iii) The fact that the incentives were available only after commencement of commercial production cannot be viewed in isolation. The other factors which weighed with the Tribunal are also not decisive to determine the character of the incentive subsidies in view of the stated objects of the subsidy scheme; (iv) Question whether the subsidy receipts are eligible u/s 80- IB not decided.” 23. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court held dismissing the appeal: “The issue raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in “Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.”, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 337, or in the alternate, in “Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd.“, reported in (2016) 3 SCALE 192 (383 ITR 217 (SC)). Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons given above, the revenue's ground of appeal is dismissed.” 24. The appeal of the assessee on the ground of Excise Duty subsidy and interest subsidy as capital receipt is hereby allowed. 25. Regarding the claim of education cess as an allowable expenditure, we find that the CBDT vide Circular No. 91/58/66 – ITJ(19) clarified as under: “Interpretation of provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the I.T Act – clarification regarding. 11 Section 40(a)(ii) – Recently a case has come to the notice of the Board where the ITO has disallowed the ‘cess’ paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change in the provisions of Section 10(4) of the old Act and Section 40(a)(ii) of the new Act. 2. The view of the ITO is not correct. Clause 40(a)(ii) of the IT Bill, 1961 as introduced in the Parliament stood as under: “(a) any sum paid on account of any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains.” When the matter came up before the Select Committee, it was decided to omit the word ‘cess’ from the clause. The effect of the omission of the word ‘cess’ is that only taxes paid are to be disallowed in the assessments for the years 1962-63 and onwards. 3. The Board desire that the changed position may please be brought to the notice of all the ITOs so that further litigation on this account may be avoided.” 26. The similar issue of allowability of cess u/s 37 has been examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 685/Cal./2014 wherein the amount of the cess paid has been held to be an allowable deduction. 27. Further, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in ITA No. 52/2018 in the case of Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. held that in view of the Circular of CBDT where the word ‘cess’ is deleted, the claim of the assessee for deduction is acceptable. In that case, the Hon’ble High Court held that there is difference between the cess and tax and cess cannot be equated with the cess. Hence, keeping in view the provisions of the Act, Circular of the CBDT and judicial pronouncements, we hereby hold that the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction of the ‘cess’ as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.” 9. We find nothing on record on behalf of the Department to take a different view. Therefore, to preserve the consistency in view, as approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v.CIT  193 ITR 321, and respectfully following the view taken by coordinate Bench, we allow the claims of assessee. 12 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed.