By the High Court in  438 ITR 227 (Ker) it is held that without a revised return being filed by the assessee the claims could not be modified by the CIT(A) so much so that in this case he entertained section 10A claim in the alternate after Section 10B claim was declined by the AO and the Tribunal also held such action contrary to the principles laid down by the apex court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT  284 ITR 323 (SC) and CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo  35 ITR 312 (SC). In the light of these decisions the High Court termed such action of the CIT(A) as both illegal and untenable.
Various judicial favourable pronouncements which have held a view that the Goetze case decision is limited to the power of assessing authorities for considering a claim made by the assessee which was originally not there in the return actually gets knocked out by the Kerala decision viz a viz CIT(A) forum of appeal. So it is to advantage Tribunal only for entertaining new pleas or alternate pleas for litigants.
In the right earnest therefore the taxpayer should make alternate claims for deduction exemptions etc upfront before the AO or else before the Tribunal and not before CIT(A).
This off the track stance by the Kerala High Court raise a dire need for setting up of a special bench of Tribunal to decide on powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) viz a viz new pleas or alternate pleas.