9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the claim of property tax to the extent of ₹ 7,74,359/- was not allowable as the payment of the same had not been made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before the hearing of appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a public sector undertaking and is engaged in the business of export domestic sales of handicrafts, handloom, products, ready-to-wear garments, carpets, etc. The assessee is a licensee of a portion of Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, main tenant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2006-07, wherein the CIT(A) had deleted the similar addition in asessee s own case. However, the AO was not satisfied with the reply filed by the ld. AR and held that since the whole amount of house tax liability is disputed, it should be considered as contingent liability and, therefore, it should be added back to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The AR filed detailed written submissions with CIT(A). The relevant portion of reply filed by AR before the CIT(A) is as under: - This has reference to the appeal fixed for today. Sir, the maiden issue of dispute this year is a covered issue and again repeats disallowance of house-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bited in the profit and loss account of the company. So, therefore, he pleaded that unascertained liability has not been taken in the books of account and only admitted liability has been booked as expense. He also brought before our notice the orders of Hon ble Tribunal for the A.Y. 2007-08 in assessee s own case in ITA No. 2987/Del/2011 wherein similar issue was decided in favour of assessee. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: - We have heard the parties and perused the record. It is not a case where the NDMC has raised demand on the assessee on account of house/property tax. The assessee is a licensee of the premises and the demand has been raised by the STC. The above fact has not been disputed by the revenue. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
