9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there may be a contingency of refund of that amount in future will not make any difference inasmuch in the year in which it was received, it has to be shown as income. The logic given by CIT is clearly misconceived, illegal and irrational. When we questioned on this aspect, learned counsel appearing for Revenue, could not dispute that once an amount has been received in a particular year, which satisfy the definition of Income under Section 2(24) of Act, 1961, it has to be shown as "income" in that year and cannot be carried forward in the next year on any presumed contingency. Therefore, on this aspect, we find that order passed by AO cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner and Tribunal has rightly held in favour of Assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Appeal No. 603/LKW/2012 in respect to assessment year 2008-09. 3. It was admitted on following three substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified under the facts and circumstances of case in setting aside the order of CIT under Section 263; without appreciating that under Section 143(3) of Act, 1961 the assessing officer can allow or reject any claim of Assessee by an order in writing only and not otherwise. (ii) Whether Tribunal is justified under the facts and circumstances of the case in setting aside the order of CIT under Section 263 without appreciating that the Tribunal cannot substitute its own reasoning regarding enquiry and application of mind to justify the order passed by Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trading activities for supply, and, therefore, has to be shown as income in the year in which it was received. Mere fact that there may be a contingency of refund of that amount in future will not make any difference inasmuch in the year in which it was received, it has to be shown as income. The logic given by CIT is clearly misconceived, illegal and irrational. 6. When we questioned on this aspect, learned counsel appearing for Revenue, could not dispute that once an amount has been received in a particular year, which satisfy the definition of Income under Section 2(24) of Act, 1961, it has to be shown as income in that year and cannot be carried forward in the next year on any presumed contingency. Therefore, on this aspect, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
