9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has disallowed the provision amount of ₹ 9.71 crores while computing total income for AY 2006-07, meaning thereby, the assessee has not claimed the amount of ₹ 9.71 crores as deduction in AY 2006-07. The assessee has reversed the entire amount of ₹ 9.71 crores in the year relevant to AY 2007-08 by crediting the same to expenditure account/P L a/c. Out of the amount so reversed, the assessee has incurred expenses to the tune of ₹ 4.17 crores. The assessee has not incurred expenses for the balance amount of ₹ 5.54 crores and hence it has increased the profit/total income of the assessee. Since it was not claimed as deduction in AY 2006-07, the same cannot be subjected to tax during the year under considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said claim with evidences. He noticed that the AO has not properly examined the above said claim made by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld CIT (LTU) revised the assessment order and restored the matter to the file of AO for examining it afresh. In the set aside proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has furnished evidences to the tune of ₹ 19,23,98,982/- only. Accordingly, he disallowed the balance amount of ₹ 5,53,30,473/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted before the Ld CIT(A) that it had disallowed a sum of ₹ 24,77,29,455/- u/s. 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act, while computing the total income for asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the assessee had voluntarily disallowed a sum of ₹ 24.77 crores in AY 2006-07 u/s. 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. The above said amount consisted of following two items:- Invoices received and accounted in AY 2006-07 - 15.06 crores Year end provisions made in AY 2006-07 - 9.71 crores 24.77 crores The Ld A.R. submitted that the assessee had not deducted tax at source from the above said payments during the year ending 31.3.2006 (AY 2006-07) and hence disallowed the same u/s. 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. During the financial year 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficult to make one to one linking of exact amounts. In any case, remaining amount of ₹ 5.54 crores represents mere reversal of provision created earlier and also not claimed as deduction in the earlier year. Hence the amount of ₹ 5.54 crores has suffered tax in AY 2006-07. Hence taxing the same amount again in the current year would result in double taxation of same income. The Ld A.R. submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has appreciated these submissions and accordingly deleted this addition. Accordingly, the Ld A.R. contended that the order passed by Ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference. 8. We heard the rival contentions and perused the record. As per the submissions made by Ld A.R., we notice that the disallowance of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
