9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue but it is equally an enabling provision under which deductions are allowed on the payment of duties and taxes. In other words, the provision of Section 43B overrides the method of accounting consistently followed and provides for the deduction of statutory liabilities in the year of payment irrespective of the year in which the liability is incurred. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 1931/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2016 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A. M. And Shri Kul Bharat, J. M. For the Appellant : Shri Keyur Patel, Sr. D.R. For the Respondent : Shri Sunil Talati, A.R. ORDER Per Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member This appeal filed by Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-VI, Baroda, dated 27.02.2012 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for various periods prior to the impugned assessment year and demand was shown as recoverable in the Balance Sheet. The A.O. was therefore of the view that Excise Duty liability did not accrue during the year and since, assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, deduction u/s.43B of the Act was allowable in the year of payment if the liability accrued during the previous year. He also noted that on similar facts in asseessee s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 the deduction u/s.43B of the Act was disallowed by his predecessor. He therefore disallowed Res.4,04,19,762/- u/s.43B of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition by holding as under: 5.2 I have cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal vide its order dated 07.12.2015 in ITA No.2463/Ahd/2012 dismissed the appeal of Revenue. He pointed to the relevant finding of Tribunal. He therefore submitted that since the A.O. has also admitted that the facts of the case in the year under appeal are identical that of A.Ys. 2008-09 and since for A.Y. 2008-09, the matter has already been decided in favour of assessee, no interference to the order of ld. CIT(A) is called for. He thus supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to deleting the disallowance made u/s.43B of the Act. We find that ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of assessee has given a finding tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the books of accounts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Carbon And Ribbon Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 505 while following its earlier decision in case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 has held that the liability accrues over the accounting period because of the Demand notices issued by the excise department and obligation to pay excise duty arose on that stage. The court further held that raising of the dispute by the assessee by filing writ petition for quashing of deduction of that liability would not be a ground for holding that liability to pay excise duty as per demand notice was not incurred. The Court also referred to the decision of Kedarnath Jute to hold that irr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
