9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed income has not been received by the appellant and the same has been written off in the F.Y. 2005-06, there is no question of accrual of additional rental income therefore the addition of the said amount is deleted. The Revenue has not placed any material on record suggesting that the facts in the present case are different than the earlier years. - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of prior period expenses - CIT(A)deleted the addition - Held that:- Since there is no change into the facts and circumstances of the case as the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of ld.CIT(A), therefore this year also, we deem it proper to restore this issue back to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh in the light of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 20/11/2007, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made disallowance in respect of non-accounting of bill for warehouse charges amounting to 3,16,584/-, disallowance of prior period expenses at ₹ 21,19,856/-, disallowance of professional fees of ₹ 77,535/- and disallowance of depreciation on building and warehouse of ₹ 11,12,656/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions partly allowed the appeal. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. The increase in rent became disputed, so it cannot be held that the rent has accrued to the appellant. In view of the facts of the case as the disputed income has not been received by the appellant and the same has been written off in the F.Y. 2005-06, there is no question of accrual of additional rental income of ₹ 3,16,584/-, therefore the addition of the said amount is deleted. 4.1. From the above, it is evident that the ld.CIT(A) has followed the earlier orders. The Revenue has not placed any material on record suggesting that the facts in the present case are different than the earlier years. In Asst.Year 2004-05, an identical ground was raised by the Revenue by way of ITA No.2901/Ahd/2008 (with CO No.224/Ahd/2008 by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remaining amount of ₹ 3,86,412/- during the year under consideration. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Id. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the warehousing charges receivable of ₹ 3,86,412/- from the total income of the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. This issue for the relevant assessment year is identical to the issue decided by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2003-04 as pointed out by the Ld. AR. Before us for the relevant assessment year also the Revenue has not brought out any materials to show that the claim made by the assessee for the revised warehousing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder and the supporting documents submitted during the course of hearing I found that the expenditure though relates to prior period are crystallized or finalized during the year under appeal. Therefore it is allowable as business expenditure. In A.Y. 2004-05 my predecessor has allowed the similar claim. In view of the facts of the case and following the appellate order for A.Y. 2004- 05 it is held that the liability for the above expenses has crystallized during the year under consideration and therefore the same is directed to be allowed in this year. 6.1. From the above finding of the ld.CIT(A), it is evident that the ld.CIT(A) has followed the order of his predecessor passed in AY 2004- 05. In AY 2004-05, the issue was carried to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the agreed terms and not on the date of the receipt of bills. REASONING OF AO 3. The assessee was requested to submit the details of allowability of the expenses relating to current year. OUR DECISION:- Not relevant. REASONING OF AO 4. It is not relevant as to whether the expenses are remained to be provided or not OUR DECISION:- Expenses can be claimed as deduction only when it is crystalized and not otherwise subject to the other provisions of the Act. REASONING OF AO 5. The Managing Director's approval is an internal matter and hence no relevance to the accounting of the income/expenses under mercantile system of accounting. OUR DECISION:- The reasoning of the Ld.AO is perfectl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
