9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance made towards prior period expenses - Held that:- We find that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in respect of this bill and not accounting the same in the earlier year. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hindusthan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. vs. ITO [2007 (12) TMI 307 - ITAT KOLKATA] had allowed the claim of prior period expenses in similar circumstances. Addition of administration charges - Held that:- As gone though the statement raised by the concerned parties to the tune of ₹ 15,18,662/- towards administration charges we find that opening stock as on 01.04.2010 was ₹ 2,06,70,213/- and bills raised during the financial year 2010- 11 was ₹ 6,32,538/- and amount adjusted against the total bills was ₹ 15,18,662/-. The closing balance as on 31.03.2011 was accordingly arrived at ₹ 11,80,919/- which was shown as liability in the balance sheet of the assessee. Ledger account of the assessee as appearing in the books of Novel Engineering (i.e. sub-contractor) wherein it is evident that the assessee had indeed realized administration charges from the sub-contractor. So these facts conclusively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing previous approval of Additional CIT, Range-Haldia as per Central Action Plan Guideline for financial year 2012-13. Notice issued u/s 143(2) of the IT Act fixing the date of hearing on 04.02.2013. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per the Central Action Plan issued by the CBDT, in case of mofussil areas, the assessing officer could select the cases for scrutiny after recording the reasons for the selection and approval of the concerned Range head who happened to be the senior most officer in that station. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the accordingly the approval given by the Additional CIT-Haldia is in order and in accordance with the Central Action Guideline which cannot be questioned by the assessee. He also observed that during the appeal this ground was not pressed by the assessee and accordingly dismissed the ground of the assessee as not pressed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3.2. We have heard rival submissions. The ld. AR before us placed reliance on copies of various order sheet notings to argue that the ld. AO placed reliance on Central Action Plan Guidelines of CBDT issued for financial year 2012-13 and selected the case for scrutiny for assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ld. AO in the order sheet appears to be only typographical error as admittedly the papers were indeed moved by him through proper channel for obtaining approval for manual selection of case for scrutiny before the ld. Additional CIT -Haldia for the assessment year 2011-12 only, which is evident and apparent from the assessment records. Hence this error committed by the ld. AO in the order sheet is construed as typographical error and is hereby condoned. In view of the aforesaid observations the ground no.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 4. The next ground raised by the assessee is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the disallowance made towards prior period expenses in the sum of ₹ 3,04,500/-, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee had incurred certain expenditure to the tune of ₹ 3,04,500/- and had paid VAT thereon in the sum of ₹ 12,180/-. The total bill amount from M/s J M Construction was ₹ 3,16,680/-. This bill dated 24.12.2009 from M/s J M construction after several negotiations was brought down to the tune of ₹ 3,16,680/- and ultimately the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and applying the same to the facts of the instant case, we allow the claim of prior period expenses of ₹ 3,04,500/- for assessment year 2011-12 and accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition made in the sum of ₹ 15,18,652/-, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a civil contractor and was engaged in the business of civil construction including excavation and evacuation of dry fly ash from the site of West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. (WBPDCL) and Durgapur Projects Ltd. (DPL). The assessee company did not possess the requisite infrastructure to excavate and evacuate the dry fly ash from the Thermal Power Plant and accordingly sub-contracted the said work to various sub-contractors including M/s Elecon Engineering Company, M/s Novel Engineering and M/s M Construction. The assessee explained before the ld. AO that West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd./ Kolaghat Thermal Power Station had adjusted S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
