9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1018 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - disallowance of prior period expenses - HELD THAT - We find that identical issue on similar facts and circumstances, in Atul Shirodkar Associates 2022 (7) TMI 1525 - ITAT MUMBAI , has decided the issue in favour of the assessee wherein held that for initiating proceedings u/s 154 of the Act, the mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As is evident from the facts available on record, the issue of prior period expenses, inter alia, on which rectification u/s 154 of the Act was done by the AO in the present case is open to divergent views and the same requires long drawn process of examination, therefore, we are of the view that rectification order passed u/s 154 on this issue clearly falls beyond the ambit of expression mistake apparent from the record - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 17,65,162. 2. Applicability of Section 154 for rectification of the disallowance. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses of Rs. 17,65,162: The Revenue contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 17,65,162, arguing that prior period expenses are not allowable unless a provision is made for the same. The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading furniture, had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially concluded the assessment under Section 143(3) and did not disallow the prior period expenses. However, the AO later issued a show cause notice under Section 154 to rectify the alleged mistake by disallowing the prior period expenses. The learned CIT(A) held that the disallowance of prior period expenses cannot be a subject matter of rectification under Section 154, as it involves a debatable issue requiring full investigation. The CIT(A) noted that the AO had examined the issue during the original assessment and was satisfied with the assessee's explanation, thus no disallowance was made. The CIT(A) emphasized that rectification under Section 154 is limited to apparent mistakes and not debatable issues requiring further analysis. 2. Applicability of Section 154 for Rectification: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the powers of the AO under Section 154 are restricted to rectifying mistakes apparent on the record. The Tribunal referred to the Co-ordinate Bench's decision in Atul Shirodkar & Associates v/s ITO, where it was held that the allowability of prior period expenses is a debatable issue and cannot be rectified under Section 154. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in T.S. Balram, ITO v/s Volkart Brothers, which held that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake, not one that requires a long-drawn process of reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the issue of prior period expenses, which involves determining when the expenses were crystallized, is open to divergent views and requires thorough examination. Consequently, such an issue falls beyond the ambit of "mistake apparent from the record" under Section 154. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that the disallowance of Rs. 17,65,162 as prior period expenses cannot be rectified under Section 154. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification under Section 154 is limited to clear and obvious mistakes and not debatable issues requiring further investigation. The decision was consistent with the judicial precedents cited, including the Supreme Court's ruling in T.S. Balram, ITO v/s Volkart Brothers. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open Court on 11/07/2024.
|
