9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam vide ITA No.139/2010-11/Addl.CIT, R-3, VSP/2015-16 dated 22.12.2015 for the A.Y. 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal related to the prior period expenses which were claimed by the assessee and the assessing officer (AO) made the addition. 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam is erroneous on the facts of the case and in law 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition of ₹ 382.76 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of prior period expenses on the ground that the amount in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing loss of ₹ 11,12,26,084/- and subsequently revised the return of income on 19.01.2010, revising the loss to ₹ 11,40,78,493/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had claimed prior period expenses amounting to ₹ 382.76 lakhs as a reduction in the return of income. Since the prior period expenses were not admissible reduction and required to be claimed as reduction in the year in which it was accrued the AO made the disallowance of ₹ 382.76 lakhs and added back to the returned loss of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the company itself has taken net credit of ₹ 351.37 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which is made available in para No. 4.3 to 4.3.2 as under : 4.3. I have carefully considered the above submissions. From the details filed, the prior period adjustments are as follows Debit Credit Raw material, Stores etc., consumed (net of CENVAT unavailed) (net of CENVAT una 31.39 lakhs Employees remuneration 0 . 9 0 Other expenses 35.49 Interest 246.7 Total 31.39 lakhs 382.76 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to the other judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mobile Pvt. Ltd 328 FIR 17 on the impugned proposition of law. Since the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein, we confirm his order. 4.3.2 As can be seen from the above, the assessee company itself has taken the net credit of ₹ 351.37 lakhs (after taking into account, the prior period expenditure of ₹ 3L39 lakhs) and added the same to the total income I loss. Considering the above, I hold that AO is not justified in adding the same again. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 382.76 lakhs. 5.1. The Hon ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in its order No.106/Vizag/2012 dated 05.03.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
