9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1274 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of claim - Held that - The assessee had rightly claimed the expenditure - The facts have not been disputed that the assessee company made above payment during the year under consideration for the purchase of additional equipment from L&T as per drawings approved by BSP - The TPI contract with Bhilai Steel Plant was on turnkey basis and the L&T supplied equipments in accordance with drawings approved by BSP, the disputed amount was debited to the P&L account in the accounting year 2001-02 and there was actual supply of equipment - the finding of the Assessing Officer is not sustainable - the liability was actually crystallized during the year. Furnishing of Satisfactory Evidences - Held that - The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly held that the claim of the assessee was to be allowed during the year under consideration - The revenue has not disputed the point that the assessee made a payment as damages PU Decks as per contractual terms when supply was made - This fact also has not been disputed by the revenue that at the trial run it was found that the supplied PU Decks were defective and the BSP directed the TPI to re-supply the PU Decks or to suffer a recovery and due to rise in the price of PU Decks, the TPI chose to pay the damages and the recovery was made according to contractual terms during the year under consideration - While the same amount of recovery has been taken into account by the assessee during the financial year 2001-02. The financial year ended on 31.3.2002 and the assessee company has made all payments after end of financial year - the recovery of cost of MST Compound by BSP, the payment for erection of building Structures and Technological Structures to M/s HSCL and payment to M/s Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. against Final Painting was actually settled and made after the end of financial year.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 37,35,253/- by the CIT(A). 2. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 31,42,500/- by the CIT(A). 3. Confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 9,85,000/- by the CIT(A). 4. Confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 14,01,372/- by the CIT(A). 5. Confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 1,79,000/- by the CIT(A). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 37,35,253/- The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim of Rs. 37,35,253/- on the grounds that the liability was disputed and had not crystallized during the year. The AO noted that the reconciliation statement dated 21.12.2001 was a proposal pending approval from the head office of L&T Ltd., and the entry was made on 31.03.2002 without confirmation from L&T Ltd. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted this addition, observing that the equipment supply was in accordance with drawings approved by Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP), and the expenditure was rightly claimed in the accounting year 2001-02. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the facts were not disputed by the Department Representative (DR) and that the liability had indeed crystallized during the year under consideration. Hence, the revenue's ground was dismissed. Issue 2: Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 31,42,500/- The AO disallowed Rs. 31,42,500/- claimed as recovery by BSP for non-re-supply of PU Deck Equipment, stating that the liability had not crystallized during the year and the relevant bills were not raised and accepted. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the recovery amount was taken into the Profit & Loss account during the year as the plant was commissioned on 12.12.2001. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, observing that the payment was made according to contractual terms and the liability was correctly accounted for in the financial year 2001-02. Thus, this ground of the revenue was also dismissed. Issue 3: Confirmation of Disallowance of Rs. 9,85,000/- The AO disallowed Rs. 9,85,000/- related to the recovery of the cost of MST Compound by BSP, stating that the liability did not accrue in the impugned year. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, noting that the case of thirty barrels of MST Chemicals was on an estimate basis and the liability did not crystallize in the year under consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, agreeing that the payment was settled after the end of the financial year. Thus, the cross-objection of the assessee was dismissed. Issue 4: Confirmation of Disallowance of Rs. 14,01,372/- The AO disallowed Rs. 14,01,372/- claimed against the erection of building structure and technological structure by M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. (HSCL), stating that the liability was not related to the impugned year. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, noting that the dispute was resolved in a meeting held on 12.06.2002 and the invoices were raised on 15.06.2002. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the liability was settled after the financial year ended. Thus, this cross-objection of the assessee was also dismissed. Issue 5: Confirmation of Disallowance of Rs. 1,79,000/- The AO disallowed Rs. 1,79,000/- claimed against final painting by M/s Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., stating that the liability was not crystallized before 12.07.2002. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, noting that the invoice was submitted on 12.07.2002, after the financial year ended. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, agreeing that the liability was settled after the financial year ended. Thus, this cross-objection of the assessee was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The disallowances of Rs. 37,35,253/- and Rs. 31,42,500/- were rightly deleted by the CIT(A), while the disallowances of Rs. 9,85,000/-, Rs. 14,01,372/-, and Rs. 1,79,000/- were correctly confirmed.
|
