9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- Even after the remand of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer, he was unable to bring any material on record to show that the liability had ceased - by virtue of limitation, the liability cannot be said to have ceased. The Assessing Officer was not able to establish that liability had ceased or that the creditors were bogus. Even if the creditors were not genuine, addition could not be made under the year in consideration - even though the amount initially was not taxable in the year of receipt, the amount changed its character when it became the assessee's own money because of limitation or by any such statutory or contractual right – addition deleted - TAX APPEAL No. 2344 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2012 - MR. AKIL KURE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act,1961. Such addition was, however, deleted by the CIT(A) on an appeal filed by the assessee. The revenue carried the issue in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order confirmed the view of the CIT(A) observing that the Tribunal in case of assessee's sister concern had deleted similar additions. It was further observed that: ... It is also pertinent to note that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out the payment made to the specified persons is excessive and unreasonable. No comparative figure was given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. In these circumstances, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was having no option but to delete the adhoc disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dded only in the year in which the receipt relates. He also relied on the decision in the case of Ambika Mills Ltd. (54 ITR 167). He also took note of the decision of the Apex Court in case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344). The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT(A) holding that cogent reasons have been given for deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Counsel for the revenue vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not appreciating the ratio of the Apex Court in case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Ltd. (supra). She further relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Hindustan Food Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 328 ITR 392 (Bom.). She submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay High Court in case of J.K. Chemicals Ltd v. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 34 wherein it was observed as under : The transfer of any entry is a unilateral act of the assessee, who is a debtor to its employees. We fail to see how a debtor by his own unilateral act, can bring about the cessation or remission of his liability. Remission has to be granted by the creditor. It is not in dispute, and it indeed cannot be disputed, that it is not a case of remission of liability. Similarly, a unilateral act on the part of the debtor cannot bring about a cessation of his liability. The cessation of the liability may occur either by reason of the operation of law, i.e. on the liability becoming unenforceable at law by the creditor and the debtor declaring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
