9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be. Addition on account of expenditure on free service to customers - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case 2016 (1) TMI 1407 - ITAT PUNE wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by further placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] has allowed the claim of assessee. There is no contrary material before us to take a different view. - Decided against revenue. Provision for leave encashment - year of assessment - HELD THAT:- A perusal of impugned order shows that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT]. AR fairly admitted that the relief has already been granted to the assessee in assessment year 2003-04 and while giving effect to the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer has not granted relief to the assessee. AR has also furnished the copy of order giving effect to the order of CIT (Appeals) u/s. 250 dated 06-02-2017. A perusal of same reveals that the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance of ₹ 4,95,495/- made out of expenditure on free service to customers placing reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (I) Pvt. Ltd. [314 ITR 62] when scientific basis of the provision of warranty is not conclusively established ? 4) The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the provision of ₹ 1,01,51,654/- for leave encashment for the AY 2001-02 when the same was allowed in A.Y.2003-04 by the AO as the assessee had paid a sum of ₹ 1,03,91,058/- during the FY 2002-03 towards liability accruing up to 31.03.2001. Hence this would result in double deduction. 3. Shri Mukesh Patel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the issues raised in the grounds of appeal by the Revenue have already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in subsequent assessment years in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed the issues in favour of the assessee by following the order of Tribunal. The ld. AR submitted that in ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Revenue has assailed order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 6,21,500/- being expenditure inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand Shri Sudhendu Das representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. However, the ld. DR fairly admitted that the issues raised by the Department in the present appeal are similar to the one adjudicated by the Tribunal in the subsequent assessment years in assessee s own case. The ld. DR submitted that since the Revenue has not accepted the order of Tribunal in assessee s case for subsequent assessment years and has filed appeal against the said orders before the Hon ble High Court. 4.1 In respect of ground No. 4 relating to provision for leave encashment, the ld. DR pointed that the assessee had paid a sum of ₹ 1,03,91,058/- during the Financial Year 2002-03 towards liability accruing up to 31-03-2001. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses on payment basis in assessment year 2003-04. Now, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has again allowed the provision for the same expenses for assessment year 2001-02 which would result in double deduction. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the expenses in the returns of income for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12, as the case may be. Needless to say, the AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Since, the issue in the present appeal is identical, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in line with the directions of Tribunal in assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal by Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In ground No. 3 of the appeal, the Revenue has assailed deleting disallowance of ₹ 4,95,495/- made on account of expenditure on free service to customers. Identical issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in appeal of Revenue in ITA Nos. 1381 to 1384/PN/2014 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench after considering the order of Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No. 1483/PN/2007, wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by further placing reliance on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
