2023 (3) TMI 1158 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of Non-agricultural assessment charges paid by the assessee - HELD THAT - CIT-DR could not bring before us any contra facts as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) and no materials is also placed before us to the finding of the AO. In absence of the same, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made by the AOon account of NAA charges. Grounds raised by the Revenue dismissed. Disallowance of Infrastructure up gradation charges - assessee has offered the income during the Assessment Year 2011-12 thereby the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition for the present Assessment Year 2010-11 - HELD THAT - As the assessee has offered the above income in the Assessment Year 2011-12, the A.O. is not justified in disallowing in the Assessment Year 2010-11. Therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference and the same is upheld. Thus the Revenue appeal in ground no. 5 is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the adjudication of Non-Agricultural (NA) charges payment and infrastructure upgradation charges by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad.

Non-Agricultural (NA) Charges Payment:
The Tribunal recalled the order to adjudicate the grounds related to NA charges payment. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the NA charges of Rs.82,08,000 as capital expenditure. The appellant contended that the charges were for Non-Agricultural Assessment (NAA) and were reimbursed to GIDC as land revenue tax. The AO misinterpreted the nature of expenditure, considering it as conversion charges, while the appellant argued it was a recurring business expenditure. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, stating the expenditure was revenue in nature.

Infrastructure Upgradation Charges:
Regarding infrastructure upgradation charges, the AO disallowed Rs.4,40,70,975 as capital expenditure, claiming it had enduring benefits. The appellant requested GIDC to waive the charges, which was done in the next financial year. The AO disallowed the amount, stating it was debited before finality. The appellant credited the amount as income for the subsequent year. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance unjustified, as the amount was already offered for tax in the following year, and upheld the deletion made by the CIT(A).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to NA charges payment and infrastructure upgradation charges. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds and upheld the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals filed by the Revenue were therefore dismissed.