2021 (6) TMI 526 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of prior period expenditure - Expenditure ought to have been claimed in the relevant previous year in which the same was incurred - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer s as well as the CIT(A) s detailed discussions have been fair enough in not disputing this clinching crystalisation aspect. Coupled with this, the assessee has been assessed at the same rate all along. The hon ble Gujarat high court s decision in PCIT Vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd. 2016 (7) TMI 1250 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT holds that the impugned prior period expenditure disallowance in such a case ought not to be made as it is a revenue neutral instance only. We adopt the same reasoning herein as well and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. The assessee s former substantive ground is accepted therefore. Employees provident fund disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT - The assessee s only case as per its computation is that it had suo motu disallowed the very expenditure in the corresponding computation which renders it as an instance of double addition of the claim.. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same therefore.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of prior period expenditure.
2. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for employees' provident fund.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure
The assessee's appeal challenged the disallowance of prior period expenditure of &8377; 47,50,000 by both lower authorities on the grounds that it did not pertain to the assessment year in question. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance stating that the expenditure related to an earlier year and was not incurred during the relevant previous year. The appellant contended that the expenditure was crystallized in the current assessment year and was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, thus eligible for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, considering the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd., held that the disallowance of prior period expenditure should not be made as it is a revenue-neutral instance. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance, accepting the assessee's argument.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for Employees' Provident Fund
The second issue pertained to the disallowance of &8377; 6,22,182 under Section 36(1)(va) for employees' provident fund made in both lower proceedings. The assessee argued that it had already suo motu disallowed the same expenditure in the corresponding computation, leading to double addition of the claim. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for employees' provident fund, as it amounted to double addition. No other grounds were pressed before the Tribunal, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances of prior period expenditure and employees' provident fund under Section 36(1)(va). The judgment emphasized the eligibility of prior period expenditure for deduction under Section 37(1) and the prevention of double addition in the case of employees' provident fund disallowance.