9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding. The entire material was placed before the A.O. and after considering the available material, the A.O. allowed the deduction hence we hold that the A.O. has allowed the expenditure correctly as per law. Also, there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of expenditure. The assessee has debited the expenditure and added back to the income. While giving effect to the CIT(A) order, the A.O. has allowed the expenses pertaining to the respective assessment years correctly. The A.O. has not allowed any excess expenditure or any bogus claim. Therefore, we hold that the order passed by the A.O. giving effect to the CIT(A) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - Decided in favour of assessee Incorrect assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT u/s 263 against the consequential order of CIT(A) - A.R. argued that the assessing officer passed order giving effect to the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 251 of the Act, and the Principal CIT has no jurisdiction to revise the CIT(A)’s order - Held that:- CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 251 of the Act with a direction to the A.O. to allow the deduction ‘in accordance with law’. Consequent to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... future years. Accordingly, the assessee paid the consolidated amount for all the 5 years in the financial year 2009-2010 relevant to the asst. year 2010-2011. Since the assessee is a company and has been following the mercantile system of accounting, provision of MCF payable on year-to-year basis was made in the books of account. However, the said provision debited to Profit Loss Account has been added back to the net profit/loss while computing the taxable income and accordingly filed the return of income for the asst. year 2004-05 to 2009-10. 2.1. As far as the asst. year 2010-2011 is concerned, the assessee filed IT Return showing the income at NIL after claiming the set off of losses, and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) by making an addition of ₹ 5,27,63,606/- representing MCF paid to DPW on payment basis. The AO has not accepted the above claim of the assessee on the ground that the addition to net profit / loss was made in order to arrive at taxable income on account of nonfulfillment of contractual conditions; but such addition ought to have been made on account of non-deduction of tax at source as per section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed the AO to examine the assessee s claim afresh in accordance with law. Against the order u/s 263 dated 24/03/1017, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Appearing for the assessee, the Ld. A.R. argued that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in as much as taking the revision for consequential order passed u/s 251 of the Act. The AR argued that the CIT has not vested with any power to take up the case for revision u/s 263.The Ld. A.R. further argued that the assessee has debited the above expenditure in the relevant year of 2004-05 to 2009-10 and added back to the income since the expenditure was not crystalized in view of the agreement reached by the payee M/s. Dubai Port World Limited. The expenditure was crystalised as per the agreement entered with the DPW, in the A.Y.2010-11 for the period from 2004-05 to 2010-11 and it rightly claimed in the assessment year 2010-11. However, the Ld. A.O. has disallowed the entire expenditure holding that the expenditure cannot be allowed in the year 2010-11 since each year is independent year of assessment by which the income has to be computed separately taking into consideration of the income and expenditure accrue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist the taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessee on whom it is imposed by law, officers should- (a) draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other: (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. 7. The Ld. A.R. argued that merely because of the ignorance and the misunderstanding the assessee did not claim the expenditure in the respective year in which the expenditure was incurred and claimed in the year 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o has given a finding in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the assessment year 2010-11 that the above expenses are allowable in the respective assessment years but not in the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, merely because there was no detailed discussion by the A.O. in the consequential order, it is not correct to hold that the A.O. has taken the decision to allow the expenditure without verification and with misunderstanding. We are of the considered view that the entire material was placed before the A.O. and after considering the available material, the A.O. allowed the deduction hence we hold that the A.O. has allowed the expenditure correctly as per law. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of expenditure. The assessee has claimed the expenditure in the assessment year 2010-11, according to the assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A), the expenditure required to be allowed in the respective assessment years. In the respective assessment years, the assessee has debited the expenditure and added back to the income. While giving effect to the CIT(A) order, the A.O. has allowed the expenses pertaining to the respective assessment years co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
