9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 924 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of deduction of debit note - debit note was stated to have been issued on 18.11.2015 after the end of the financial year and after the return was filed and the assessee had not made any provision towards this expenditure and had failed to demonstrate that the liability crystallized during the year under consideration - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - We find no error in the process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) as noted above. It was inter alia noted by the CIT(A) that debit note issued by supplier (GAIL) for purchase relates to F.Y. 2014-15 on account of difference in gas price. Thus without taking into account the extra price payable to the gas supplier the true and fair state of affairs of the assessee society cannot be deduced. Hence we see no reason to interfere with the tax neutral claim made by the assessee. It is not the case of the Revenue that expenditure is not bona fide and not allowable at all. The expenditure in view of the AO is probably allowable in the next assessment year i.e. AY 2016-17 with which we do not concur. The action of the CIT(A) is completely rational and thus endorsed. Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning disallowance of deduction of debit note in the assessment order for AY 2015-16. Analysis: 1. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of ?7,92,41,327 made on account of disallowance of deduction of a debit note. The debit note was issued after the end of the financial year, and the Revenue contended that the liability did not crystallize during the relevant year. 2. The assessee, a co-operative society engaged in providing CNG gas, claimed the deduction based on a debit note issued by the supplier GAIL Limited for gas purchased for domestic customers but sold to industrial customers. The AO disallowed the claim, stating that the liability on the debit note did not crystallize during the relevant year and no provision was made for it in the books. 3. The CIT(A) favored the assessee, noting that the debit note issued by GAIL related to the previous financial year and the enhancement of the cost of gas was in accordance with the agreement. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition, emphasizing that the action of the AO was unwarranted. 4. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) was sound. The Tribunal agreed that without considering the extra price payable to the gas supplier, the true state of the assessee's affairs could not be deduced. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the tax neutral claim made by the assessee, as the expenditure was deemed allowable in the subsequent assessment year. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, endorsing the CIT(A)'s rational decision. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was valid and should not be disallowed, as it pertained to the previous financial year and was in accordance with the agreement with the supplier. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of the disallowed deduction based on the debit note issued by the supplier, emphasizing that the expenditure was legitimate and allowable in the subsequent assessment year.
|
