9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee and claimed as expenditure during the A.Y. 2013-14. With this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that inasmuch as the bills were issued in the financial year 2012-13 and as a result of litigation, the APSPDCL raised the demand on 7.11.2015 for payments of dues up to 06.08.2016 in instalments and the assessee paid such instalments, they are entitled to claim such payments in the A.Y. 2013-14. Observing thus, we restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for verification of the amounts paid during the financial year 2012-13 and to grant relief. Grounds 2 3 of this appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Additions u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- Considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid expenditure was allowable. 3. The reliance placed by the authorities below on the judgments cited in the respective orders for making/sustaining addition of FSA charges of ₹ 45,14,399/- is totally misplaced as the said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. 4. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the other grounds viz., (i) addition of ₹ 1,45,051/- u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act (ii) disallowance of audit fee of ₹ 2,00,000/-, (iii) disallowance of hire charges of ₹ 7,20,000/-, (iv) disallowance of ₹ 30,480/- being the expenditure incurred by Director on behalf of employees and (v) addition of income tax refund of ₹ 27,030/-. The CIT(A) ought to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Assessing Officer, insofar as the FSA charges relating to the financial year 2010-11 and 2011-12 pertain to earlier period in respect of which liability had not been crystallized in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, observed that the liability of this expenditure depends upon the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the High Court as such, such an expenditure relating to the earlier year is not allowable for the A.Y. 2013-14. On this premise, learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of FSA charges to the tune of ₹ 45,14,399/- holding that it related to the earlier A.Ys. 3. So also, the Assessing Officer made certain additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of any allegation that no such expenditure was met, the same cannot be disallowed stating that it relates to the prior period. He further submitted that despite questioning the levy of FSA, the assessee made payment and in case of ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds the issue against the assessee it will be offered to tax as income in that year, and because, as on the date the issue is held in favour of the assessee, the assessee is entitled to claim the same. 6. In respect of other conditions, it is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the appeal was filed before the CIT(A) in the year which is the first year after online filing of appeals and due to the technical incompetence, the other ground could not be uploaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, it is only in the year of crystallization of the liability, the assessee had taken into account, the liability in respect of FSA charges. On this ground, learned AR submitted that such an expenditure is allowable. 9. On this aspect, we find from the paper book at page Nos. 27 to 38 that irrespective of the fact of the FSA coming to force at a much earlier period of time, the liability was crystallized only during the financial year 2012-13 in which the appeals under page No. 27 onwards in the paper book were issued. It is also not in dispute that there was a dispute raised by the assessee and others by way of writ petition and the Hon'ble High Court observes that the orders of the Regulatory Commission passed on 17.1.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee paid such instalments, they are entitled to claim such payments in the A.Y. 2013-14. Observing thus, we restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for verification of the amounts paid during the financial year 2012-13 and to grant relief. Grounds 2 3 of this appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Ground No. 4 relates to the additions u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and others etc., are concerned, the impugned order speaks that the learned CIT(A) observed that inasmuch as no specific ground is raised either originally or by way of additional grounds, the same do not deserves to be adjudicated. Hardships expressed by the assessee is that it is the first year for submission of the online appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
