9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receives payment of surcharge, it would be obliged to pay tax on such amount. In view of the above, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the aforesaid findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. However, it is recorded that as and when the assessee receives payment of surcharge, it would be obliged to pay tax on such amount. - decided against revenue - ITA-295-2018 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel ORDER AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee's own case for the AY 2006-07, which is still pending? 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is purchasing the electricity from M/s Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. and distributing the same to the consumers at the rate fixed by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short the Commission ). The assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2005 by declaring a loss of ₹ 163,32,42,391/- for the assessment year 2005-06. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 11.10.2006. The assessee also filed a revised return of income on 18.10.2006 by declaring a loss of ₹ 222,90,10,540/- and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition made on account of 'surcharge levied but not realized' by following its earlier orders dated 6.11.2009, 3.1.2011, 11.8.2011 and 4.10.2011 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 and that of the Tribunal's orders dated 30.11.2011, 27.6.2012 and 10.2.2012 for the assessment years 2006- 07 to 2008-09. Against the order, Annexure A-2, the revenue filed an appeal whereas the assessee filed cross-objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 16.1.2018 (Annexure A-3) affirmed the order, Annexure A-2, of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal as well as the cross objections by relying upon the decision of this Court in ITA-209-2014 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisat v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Niga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory auditors of the Nigam pointed out in their audit report on the accounts for the year ending 31st March, 2003 that the recognition of income by charging surcharge on delayed payments is in contravention of the Basic accounting assumption of prudence as contained in Accounting Standard-1 on Disclosure of Accounting Policies and without any certainty as to its recognition issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Considering the auditors objection, the Audit Committee of the Boards of directors of the Nigam decided in its 2nd Meeting held on 21st February, 2003 to account for delayed payment income of surcharge on receipt basis henceforth. Accordingly, the income from surcharge of delayed payment is being accounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame are not applicable in the present case. However, the assessee s case is fully covered by the Coordinate Bench decisions of the Tribunal in assessee s own case of assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition in dispute by respectfully following the decision of the previous CIT(A) as well as the ITAT decisions in assessee s own case of assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09, hence, the impugned order does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. 8. As regards, Assessee s Cross Objection is concerned, since we have already dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
