9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and concluded that the prospecting & boring expenditure as per the assessment order of earlier years is to be allowed u/s.35E for next ten years and, accordingly, allowed 10% of Rs. 448.53 lakhs being Rs. 44.85 lakhs, which was confirmed in appeal by the CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing, both the parties agreed that the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, respectively. 5. After hearing both the parties, we find that this issue has been dealt with by this Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08 in ITA No.227/CTK/2009 and others order dated 12.9.2011 as under: "We find that the learned CIT(A) has considered the issue and held that the expenditure booked under the head prospecting and boring and appearing in the fixed asset schedule and workin- progress should also be considered on the same basis as directed while adjudicating development expenses. We have already adjudicated the issue on "Development expenses" and upheld the order of the CIT(A) for the reasons as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as deduction in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer observed that the expenditure has neither been incurred nor any liability accrued during the year, rather a provision has been made for future expenditure and, accordingly, disallowed for the same. 13. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co.Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 37 ITR 66 (SC), wherein, it has been held that provision for a contingent or unaccrued liability is not allowable as deduction. 14. Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the provision of expenditure made in the earlier years has been offered for taxation whereas ld D.R. controverted the submission of ld A.R. of the assessee by mentioning that no such evidence was filed before the Assessing Officer or ld CIT(A). The Ld A.R. has submitted details of land reclamation expenditure, which includes ledger account copy of claim of land reclamation expenditure during the financial years 2003-04 to 2010-2011, and prayed for allowing the claim 15. Ld D.R. has objected that these documents were filed before the Tribunal for the first time, which are to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a public sector undertaking, has undertaken number of development work in and around its peripheral area to fulfil its social obligation and in the process made donations and further details of expenditure were duly furnished before the Assessing Officer. Ld A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 has allowed the expenditures under this head. He, therefore, prayed that the disallowance made under the head "donation and subscription" be deleted. 23. Contra, ld D.R. objected to the submission of ld A.R. of the assessee. 24. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure claimed under the head "donation and subscription" on the ground that the assessee failed to furnished any evidence before the Assessing Officer as called for. On appeal, the CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-02 and 2002-03 has directed the Assessing Officer to allow such expenditure where the assessee has been able to establish relation over the expenditure of the assessee company. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence in the books of account. 30. Before us, both the parties agreed that the issue requires reconsideration in view of the decision of the Tribunal held as under: "Having heard both the parties and perusing the material on record, we are of the considered view that in absence of any technical report In support of the claim and as there is any evidence in support of the claim, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee which has been quantified on a percentage basis i.e., 10% that too without any material basis. At the same time, it is not improbable that there might be certain deterioration of stock due to fire and longer period of stocking etc., but a basis has to be based on the books of accounts itself and not in a whimsical manner. These facts, in our view, require reconsideration in the light of technical support or evidence in the books of account. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in the light what has been stated above." 31. We find that the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue on the above basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he file to the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in the light of details furnished by the assessee after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 36. The next issue relates to confirmation of addition of s.110.09 lakhs on account of claim of 15% on loss on sale/discard of assets. 37. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 110.09 lakhs @ 15% on the value of loss on sale/discard of assets amounting to Rs. 733.94 lakhs and also claimed depreciation separately and not in the depreciation schedule. Before the Assessing Officer, it was claimed by the assessee that this practice is followed to maintain uniformity in account. The Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of the assessee. 38. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness of assessee's claim and given effect if any, as the issue is linked with the assessment year 1995-96 to 2008-09. 39. We heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) as he has only directed the Assessing Officer to verify the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
