9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO to examine the correctness of the break-up details furnished since, in the letter dated 13.3.2015, there are no clear figures given except to state that the provision was made in the relevant assessment year on account of the arbitration petition filed by the contractor. We find that in the said letter, there is also a mention about the amounts, which were written back and offered as income in the subsequent assessment years namely assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15. There are other details, which appeared to have been enclosed along with the said letter dated 13.3.2015, but they have not been referred to by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 23.3.2015. Therefore, a fresh exercise needs to be done by the AO by per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned immediately on failure of the assessee to comply with the terms and conditions of contract and only quantification of such liability was done later, which do not make the provision for payment of compensation as unascertainable for considering the same as allowable deduction ? And iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision for rental compensation was an unascertained liability not allowable as business expenditure ? 3. We have heard Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the assessee and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel accepting notice for the Revenue. With consent of the learned counsel on either side, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that the said provision is allowable. 7. The Assessing Officer opined that the said provision is only contingent in nature and to support such a conclusion, he recorded that the fact that in the subsequent years, the said provision was liquidated by writing it back, would clearly prove that it is contingent in nature and accordingly disallowed the same. Aggrieved by that, the assessee carried on the matter on appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai [for brevity, the CIT(A)], who appeared to have verified the details filed by the assessee and in particular, the break-up of the provision made and held that the provision made is not only with regard to the contractor, but also to various other items and that with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Standing Counsel for the Revenue before us that an arbitration award was passed in January 2016 and therefore, the year, in which, the provision could be made, is very crucial. 12. On going through the order passed by the CIT(A), we find that the details furnished by the assessee company were referred to and the break-up details were also culled out in the order passed by the CIT(A). However, it is not clear as to whether those materials were available with the Assessing Officer, which, according to the assessee, were very much available and were furnished along with the letter dated 13.3.2015. In any event, a remand report could have been called for by the CIT(A) from the Assessing Officer to examine the correctness of the break-up det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
