9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts by its Head office during the year under consideration and, therefore, the same have been rightly accounted for in the instant year. There is no controversion to the assertion of the learned representative that such practice has been consistently followed by the assessee and that such practice evens out any difference in deductibility of the total expenses over a period of time. Considering the aforesaid, we find no reason to deny the claim of assessee for deduction of the impugned expenditure.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2388/MUM/2012 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2017 - Shri G. S. Pannu, Accountant Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri Girish Dave Respondent by : Shri Ajai Pratap Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Explaining the background of the dispute, the learned representative for the assessee has referred to the relevant discussion in the assessment order wherein in para 4.2, the Assessing Officer has inter-alia, reproduced the written submissions of the assessee. In terms of the said submissions, it is quite clear that assessee canvassed that in terms of the consistent practice followed in the past, assessee closed its accounts each year on 30th April itself, i.e. within one month from the end of the relevant accounting year 31st March. Assessee has several offices in India from which the Statement of Expenses are received by the Head Office after such cut-off date of 30th April and such expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efforts to obtain such material by approaching the Assessing Officer on more than one occasion. In this regard, he filed copies of the communications addressed to the Assessing Officer dated 18.12.2015, 25.4.2016, 25.5.2016 and 4.10.2016. Even otherwise, on merits also, the learned representative pointed out that the disallowance was impermissible and in this context, referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jagatjit Industries Ltd., 339 ITR 382 (Delhi). 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has reiterated the reasoning of the Assessing Officer to the effect that since the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, the impugned prior period expenses could not be allowed as a deduction in the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and crystallized during the year under consideration inasmuch as the requisite bills, details, etc. have been received by the assessee for incorporation in accounts by its Head office during the year under consideration and, therefore, the same have been rightly accounted for in the instant year. There is no controversion to the assertion of the learned representative that such practice has been consistently followed by the assessee and that such practice evens out any difference in deductibility of the total expenses over a period of time. Considering the aforesaid, we find no reason to deny the claim of assessee for deduction of the impugned expenditure. 8. Before parting, we may also refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
