2024 (5) TMI 1302 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of 'pit filling' expenses - CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal in part by estimating the pit filling expenses at Rs. 104 per ton - Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the finding recorded by the CIT(A) in estimating the pit filling expenses is without any basis and has to be reconsidered by the assessing officer after granting opportunity to the assessee.- HELD THAT - The revenue in this appeal has not alleged or pleaded that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse. Further the order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to the assessing officer is without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. The order of remand would not prejudice the interest of the revenue or the assessee. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration of this Court from the order of Tribunal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2014-15.

Issue 1:
The Tribunal's remand without findings on the assessing authority's order under Section 143(3) regarding 'pit filling' expenses.

The assessing officer disallowed the pit filling expenses claimed by the assessee, stating they were unreasonable and lacked a scientific basis. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal by estimating the expenses. The Tribunal found the estimation without basis and directed reassessment by the assessing officer. The revenue contended the remand was unnecessary, but the Court held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.

Issue 2:
Allowability of unascertained mine closure provisions as expenses.

The Tribunal held that unincurred mine closure provisions are allowable expenses, which the revenue challenged. The revenue argued that as the mine was still operational, the liability had not arisen. However, the Court found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

Issue 3:
Allowability of 'pit filling' expenses not actually incurred.

The Tribunal allowed 'pit filling' expenses not incurred, which the revenue disputed, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The revenue argued that as the liability to fill the mining pits had not arisen, the expenses were not allowable. The Court found the Tribunal's decision valid and dismissed the appeal, stating no substantial question of law arose.