IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 ITA.No. 306 of 2010() --------------------- ITA.785/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT. ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal No.306 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. We have heard Standing Counsel for the appellant. Appeal is filed against the Kerala State Electricity Board which as of now is a statutory body under the control of the Government. Question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the first appellate authority allowing respondent to raise a new claim of deduction which was earlier treated as prior period expenses by the assessee debiting the Profit and Loss Account for earlier years. However, department's objection is that the claim was not made in the original return, but was claimed in the course of assessment without filing a revised return. Both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to claim of deduction. 2. On going through the questions raised, we find the department's objection is not on merit but on technicality i.e. whether revised return is mandatory for entertaining the claim. Since the 2 expenditure referred to is already reflected in the accounts and since two lower authorities found that the claim would be considered on merits without the assessee filing a revised return, we do not find any substantial question of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal. Hence the appeal filed under Section 260A is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms