2017 (5) TMI 1682 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of prior period expenses - assessee following mercantile system of accounting - ITAT deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Chambal Fertilizers and also decision of Delhi High Court in case of SMCC Construction India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2013 (10) TMI 1227 - DELHI HIGH COURT prior period expenses had crystallized/settled in the year. The reasons to believe recorded do not show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has formed a reasonable belief that the said expenditure had not crystallized during the year relevant to the assessment year. It is apparent the Assessing Officer suspects that the income has escaped assessment. But mere suspicion is not enough. The reasons to believe must record reasons, the reading of which should demonstrate, that such a reasonable belief could be formed on some basis/foundation and was in fact formed by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Tribunal's judgment dismissing department's appeal - Deletion of prior period expenses - Justification under mercantile system of accounting.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision dismissing the department's appeal regarding the deletion of prior period expenses amounting to ?1,55,40,777. The Court framed the question of law to determine if the Tribunal was justified in confirming the deletion of these expenses while following the mercantile system of accounting. The case involved the filing of a return of income showing a loss, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessment proceedings were initiated, and various notices were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed an allocation error in the profit and loss account, leading to an inflated expenditure of ?66,87,891. Despite management's explanations and previous appeal decisions, the AO added this amount to the total income. The Tribunal upheld this decision.

The respondent's counsel argued that the issue was similar to precedents set by the High Court and Delhi High Court, citing specific cases. The court referred to these cases, emphasizing that prior period expenses are deductible if the liability was determined and crystallized during the relevant year. The court analyzed the Assessing Officer's reasoning for disallowing the expenses and concluded that the reasons provided lacked a reasonable basis. It was noted that suspicion alone is insufficient to justify disallowing expenses, emphasizing the importance of a valid and well-founded belief for such actions. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the deletion of prior period expenses was justified under the mercantile system of accounting.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of valid reasoning and established precedents in determining the treatment of prior period expenses under the mercantile system of accounting, ultimately upholding the deletion of such expenses in this case.