JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the IT Act") has been preferred by the appellant-Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the ITAT") dated June 1, 2012, passed in I.T.A. No. 941/JP-2011 by which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II (for short, the "CIT(A)"). The relevant assessment year is the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The brief facts, as emerging on the fact of record, are that the respondent-assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of dowell pin-disc, spring cutter pin and mining of manganese ore. The assessee is basically an exporter. It was the claim of the assessee that it was entitled to deduction under section 10B of the Income-tax Act as it is a 100 per cent. export oriented unit and entitled for exemption as it fulfils all the conditions laid down under section 10B of the Income-tax Act. It is the claim of the assessee that it had also got prepared an audit report in Form 56G as also tax audit report (Form 3CD). However, inadvertently and on account of mistake by the operator in the office of the chartered accountant, instead of exemption having been claimed under section 10B in the return, it was wrongly typed as 80-IB and this clerical mistake was not attributable on the part of the assessee but attributable in the office of the chartered accountant while e-filing return of income which was submitted on the last day on September 30, 2008. It was the further claim of the assessee that all the ingredients have been fulfilled of a claim under section 10B and even in the past years, the claim was being regularly allowed. 3. A detailed explanation appears to have been filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer (for short, "the AO") mentioning about the facts and also requesting the Assessing Officer to consider the mistake and in the alternative the letter may be treated as a revised return and, accordingly, the claim, which is otherwise allowable under section 10B, may be allowed instead of wrong deduction under section 80-IB. 4. 4. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation and, according to him, strict compliance with the Income-tax Act is required to be made. According to the Assessing Officer, section 80A(5) is very clear that if the claim under section 10B has not been made in the return of income, then deduction cannot be allowed. However, he was of the opinion that if the assessee wanted to claim the deduction, he ought to have filed a regular revised return and the assessee having not done so, the claim was held to be disallowed and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 46,17,406. The Assessing Officer also relied upon the judgment of the hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 5. Aggrieved by the disallowance of the claim, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, after elaborate discussion, observed that the assessee is a 100 per cent. export oriented unit and that it having fulfilled all the conditions laid down under section 10B, merely because section 80-IB was wrongly mentioned as against section 10B, the claim could not have been disallowed and, accordingly, directed to allow the deduction under section 10B. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal who also came to the conclusion that this is only a technical defect and cannot be said to be a defect for denying the deduction which is otherwise allowable/eligible and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. It is this order which is assailed before us by the appellant-Revenue. 7. Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue, submitted that one has to be very particular specially while claiming 100 per cent. exemption as, in the present case, as the Act prescribes guidelines in allowing a deduction. He further contended that there is a lot of difference in between an exemption, i.e., under section 10B or a deduction under section 80-IB and the law envisages that complete particulars are required to be fulfilled and this being a statutory claim, the respondent-assessee ought to have been more vigilant and careful. He further contended that there is a lot of difference in between an exemption, i.e., under section 10B or a deduction under section 80-IB and the law envisages that complete particulars are required to be fulfilled and this being a statutory claim, the respondent-assessee ought to have been more vigilant and careful. He further contended that section 80A(5) clearly postulates that the claim has to be made in return of income and when in the return of income there was no claim under section 10B, then the Assessing Officer was within its jurisdiction to disallow the entire claim. He further contended that this section also postulates that if the claim was not made in the return of income, then the assessee had opportunity to file a revised return. Then certainly, the assessee could have enured for exemption but since no regular revised return having been filed, the Assessing Officer had correctly come to the conclusion about non-grant of deduction under section 10B. He further contended that the question of verification of export realisation and other conditions will come only once the question of granting exemption under section 10B is settled. He further contended that if the assessee had been allowed deduction in the past, it will not make any difference as the exemption is to be allowed on the facts of the particular year and on year to year basis. He strongly relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) and submitted that substantial question of law emerges out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and needs consideration of this court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and gone through the orders passed by the authorities below. 9. It would be fruitful to quote section 80A(5) of the Income-tax Act, which provides as under : "80A.(5) 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." 10. In our view, the decision of the apex court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the Revenue, rather supports the case of the assessee, than of the Revenue as the hon'ble apex court has observed as under (page 324) : "The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 11. On perusal of the above, in our view, though the assessing authority had no power but the appellate authorities did have power and, therefore, for this reason also, in our view, the judgment Goetze (India Ltd. (supra) supports the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. 12. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) , held as under (page 45) : "As clear from the above said facts, there is no dispute that customer introduction charges did not represent revenue expenditure. The principal ground taken by the Revenue in this appeal is that if no claim for deduction of the amount was made in the return of income, then deduction would not be allowed. Section 254 of the Act says that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. Reference may be made to National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) , where the Supreme Court observed that (page 386) : 'The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law . . . We do not see any reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Com missioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law . . . We do not see any reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Com missioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessees as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier'." 13. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC) , while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Supreme Court 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 in 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 Appel late Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permit ting 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." 14. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom) has held as under (page 338) : "It is important to note two things. Firstly, the respondent is entitled to the deduction claimed. Secondly, the respondent made the claim not only before the Assessing Officer, but also independently before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Firstly, the respondent is entitled to the deduction claimed. Secondly, the respondent made the claim not only before the Assessing Officer, but also independently before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and/or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had the jurisdiction to consider a new/additional claim/deduction subsequently raised before the Assessing Officer which, through inadvertence, was not claimed in the return of income filed by the respondent. The question is answered in the affirmative by several judgments . . . We find well founded, Mr. Mistri's submission that even assuming that the Assessing Officer is not entitled to grant a deduction on the basis of a letter requesting an amendment to the return filed, the appellate authorities are entitled to consider the claim and to adjudicate the same." 15. The hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Sanchit Software and Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 404 (Bom) has held as under : "Income-tax Department cannot take advantage of the assessee's mistakes in not claiming exemption in Income-tax return and not deny him exemption. The entire object of administration of tax is to secure the revenue for the development of the country and not to charge assessee more tax than that which is due and payable by the assessee." 16. Admittedly, the respondent-assessee is a 100 per cent. export oriented unit and had been claiming exemption right from the assessment year 2004-05 under section 10B. It may be that the claim is to be allowed on year to year basis but when the facts and circumstances reveal that the assessee was eligible even this year for exemption under section 10B and it has been found to be in order except that instead of mentioning the exemption under section 10B, while e-filing the return of the Income-tax, it was wrongly, on account of typographical error, mentioned as section 80-IB, in our view, it cannot be said to be such a mistake by which the exemption could be disallowed out rightly. It was already stated by the assessee during the course of hearing before the Assessing Officer himself that it complies with all the requirements for claim of exemption under section 10B. It was already stated by the assessee during the course of hearing before the Assessing Officer himself that it complies with all the requirements for claim of exemption under section 10B. The assessee-company was under the bona fide belief that there was no mistake in the return, hence no revised return was filed but after knowing the clerical/computerized mistake that the claim was wrongly mentioned as under section 80-IB instead of section 10B, the assessee-company filed a revised computation of income claiming deduction under section 10B of the Income-tax Act, vide letter dated December 13, 2010, before the Assessing Officer. Not only this, the assessee also filed a copy of ARE-1 duly sealed and signed by the customs authorities in respect of the exports having taken place. For evidencing realisation of export bills, the statement of outstanding export bills from Andhra Bank as on August 31, 2008, showing the export bills outstanding for realisation as on that date was also submitted. From the statement of outstanding export bills as confirmed by the Andhra Bank, it was clear that no bill prior to the date of March, 2008, had been shown as outstanding for realization. It is an admitted fact that since the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee did not have any taxable income after adjusting the unabsorbed depreciation and, therefore, tax was being paid under section 115J and, therefore, the deduction under section 10B was being claimed in computation of income. In our view, the mentioning of section 80-IB was only clerical mistake and with all fairness as per the facts and circumstances and as per the previous claims in tax calculation under section 115J, the assessee was legally entitled for this benefit. It was also admitted that the assessee had neither changed/revised the financial statements nor tax audit report (Form 3CD) originally filed by it. The assessee had only submitted the audit report in Form 56G which was not enclosed with the return in view of the provisions of rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules. The purpose of the audit report in Form 56G is totally different than the purpose of the audit report in Form 3CA annexed with Form 3CD. It is also an admitted fact that the financial statement also remained the same. The purpose of the audit report in Form 56G is totally different than the purpose of the audit report in Form 3CA annexed with Form 3CD. It is also an admitted fact that the financial statement also remained the same. In our view, the spirit behind this statement must be that the assessee should have claimed the exemption in his return and filed the same within due date and in the instant case, the assessee on the facts available on record clearly shows that the claim was duly made but the section was inadvertently wrongly mentioned and this fact came to the notice of the assessee at a later point of time when pointed out by the Assessing Officer. In our view, the purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities was to assess the income correctly and the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If such clerical mistake occurred, then, in our view, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to inform the assessee that this claim is wrongly claimed and that one may claim the exemption under the concerned section. It is also an admitted position that substantial manufacturing activities were being carried out by the assessee within the bonded premises in terms of CBEC Circular No. 65 of 2002-Cus, dated October 7, 2002, and Notification No. 52 of 2003-Cus, dated March 31, 2003. In our view, the allegation of the Assessing Officer was totally unfounded as all the documents, which are issued by the Government authorities, could not have been predated or fabricated by the assessee and, in our view, the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the claim could be in the nature of an afterthought is not correct. 17. We may also observe that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had plenary power in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power was co-terminus with that of the Income-tax Officer. He could do what the Income-tax Officer could do and also direct him to do what he had failed to do. It has been held by the authorities of the hon'ble apex court (supra) that the above observations are squarely applicable and the interpretation of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. He could do what the Income-tax Officer could do and also direct him to do what he had failed to do. It has been held by the authorities of the hon'ble apex court (supra) that the above observations are squarely applicable and the interpretation of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law was clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CIT (Appeals)) was co-terminus with that of the Income-tax Officer and if that is so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority could not 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 the appellate power. Even otherwise, an appellate authority, while hearing an appeal against the order of a subordinate authority, had all the powers which the original authority might 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 provision, the appellate authority was vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority might have in the matter. As the assessee has filed a revised computation, in our view, it holds good as except the change of section from 80-IB to 10B, all other supporting material remained the same including the audit report claiming such exemption. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries P. Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 530 (Bom) held that where a claim for special deduction was made by the assessee not in his return but in the course of the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer failed to consider the same, it was open to the appellate authority to entertain the claim. The hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) observed that the power of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sitting in appeal over an assessment were plenary and co-terminus with those of the Assessing Officer and that he can do what the Income-tax Officer can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do and, in our view, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) indeed has powers to examine the assessee's claim on the merits by virtue of section 250(5). In that case, the claim was first time made under section 80HHC before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, accordingly, no infirmity was found by the hon'ble apex court in grant of deduction under section 80HHC. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramco International, reported in [2011] 332 ITR 306 (P&H) , where the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act although furnished Form 10CCB, it was held that even where there was a claim by way of an application without filing a revised return and in such a situation, deduction could not be disallowed. 18. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that once the assessee was found eligible for an exemption under section 10B, it having been allowed such exemption in the past, and merely because a typographical error crept in while e-filing the return and it was mentioned as under section 80-IB instead of section 10B, this being a technical mistake, should not come in the way by disallowing the otherwise allowable/eligible exemption. 19. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal so as to call for any interference of this court. In our view, it is essentially a concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities and no substantial question arise or is required to be considered. 20. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. *******