9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers representing the assessee and it does take time in many cases. It is not the case of the AO that the subsequent claims are duplication of claims in respect of the same liability, and the assessee does not stand to gain as a result of this delay in accounting. In any event, the quantification of claims is verified by the statutory auditors as also the CAG audit teams, and the same method of accounted is being followed by the assessee for last 50 years. As there is no change in method of accounting, as there is no duplication of claims, and, as assessee does not anyway gain anything from delaying accounting for these claims, we see no reasons to reject the claims merely because these claims are accounting for, in the books of accounts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interfere with order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue, and this ground of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - Decided in favour of revenue. - I.T.A. No.507/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2018 - Pramod Kumar AM AND Mahavir Prasad, JJ. ORDER Pramod Kumar, J. 1. This appeal, filed by the Assessing Officer, is directed against the order dated 31st December 2015 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grievance raised by the Assessing Officer in Ground No.1 is as follows:- The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 40,13,62,384/- made on account of motor accident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claims merely because these claims are accounting for, in the books of accounts, at a point of time later than awards being granted i.e. when the assessee gets to know about the same. In any event, the CIT(A) has given a categorical direction to the Assessing Officer for verification of claim on account of the liability having been crystallized in the relevant previous year. Grievance of the Assessing Officer, regarding crystallization of liability, does not, therefore, survive any longer. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 4. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts are identical in the present case also, even in the respect of income from rent towards staff quarter. Admittedly, the major part of the income for the licence fee of canteen is not from staff, but from outsiders and hence this judgment is not applicable to this receipt at all, and even for the receipt of rent on account of staff quarter, the judgment is not applicable because it could not be shown by the learned AR of the assessee that the facts are identical. Regarding the argument that this income was taxed under the head income from business in earlier years, we find that on the plea of consistency, it cannot be held that if a mistake is committed by the AO in earlier years, the same should be perpetuated. This is not case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
