2012 (10) TMI 901 - HC - Income Tax

Whether prior year expenditure can be adjusted against the income of the subsequent year where the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting as per Tribunal - Held that - given the nature of deposit maintained by the assessee and the fact that the claims from the customers were settled after protracted litigation and arbitration, the crediting and debiting of the receipts and expenses as and when the claims settled were reported in the return, which apparently required an investigation into the claims of the assessee. If the relief on the merits of the claim could be considered only through the process of reasoning, given the limited scope of Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, which is only a prima facie adjustment on a non-debatable issue Section 143(1)(a) - revenue s appeal is rejected and order of the Tribunal is confirmed - No costs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjustment of prior year expenditure against subsequent year income under mercantile accounting system.
2. Whether the issue of adjustment of prior year expenditure can be considered in proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the adjustment of prior year expenditure against subsequent year income under the mercantile accounting system. The Assessing Officer had made certain additions during the assessment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, which the assessee contested through a petition under Section 154. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of expenses related to earlier years, citing that under the mercantile system, such expenses are not admissible in subsequent years. The First Appellate Authority rejected the assessee's claim, leading to an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the case, found that the matter of crediting, debiting, and adjusting expenses and income was a debatable issue. It concluded that such a debatable question could not be settled through a prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the claim required a detailed investigation beyond the scope of a prima facie adjustment. The Revenue subsequently appealed to the High Court.

3. The High Court considered the nature of the deposits maintained by the assessee and the complexities arising from settling claims after litigation and arbitration. It noted that the matter required a thorough examination into the claims made by the assessee, which could only be done through a regular assessment process. Given the limited scope of Section 143(1)(a) for prima facie adjustments on non-debatable issues, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the High Court rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that the issue should be addressed during the regular assessment process rather than through a prima facie adjustment.