9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f commission on sale - HELD THAT:- As the sale proceeds was received on 04.08.2011, therefore, the commission on sales was accordingly crystallized in the year under consideration and not in the year of the sale. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has also held the claim of the assessee as justifiable, however, directed the AO to verify the fact and ascertain the amount as otherwise payable. We are of the view that if the Assessing Officer has not already verified then we direct him to verify the payment and allow in view of finding of the Ld. CIT(A). This ground is allowed for statistical purposes Liability of transport charges disallowed - HELD THAT:- As the expenses have been crystallized only after receipt of the report from the customer as stipulated in the contract for transport charges with the transporter. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee of transport charges in the year under consideration is allowed. Further, we are of the view that in the earlier assessment year as well in current assessment year, the assessee has reported taxable income and rate of tax being unaltered, therefore, the entire exercise of assessing in the year under consideration for AY 2012-13 or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order, the Chartered Accountant of the Company inquired from the office of the Ld. CIT(A) and when he found that order was already served upon the assessee, the assessee found out name of the person from the post office as on whom the order was served. The person Shri Dayanand K. Salian, who is working as peon admitted the fact of the receipt of said order and explained that the bag in which he kept the copy of the said order, was lost in travel and due to fear of loss of job, he could not report the same to the company. The Ld. counsel further submitted that appeal fee was deposited on 27.03.2020 thereafter, the delay was happened due to other factor like due to pandemic, lockdown imposed, medical problems at the end of the Authorized Representative (AR) who was engaged for filing the appeal etc. The Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that delay from the period from 23.03.2020 is covered by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020. In respect of period prior to pandemic, the Ld. counsel submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, appeal could not be filed and there was no malafide intention in delay in the filing of appeal. Accordingly, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 5. We also find that u/s 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ), the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation, where it is satisfied that their exist a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on his part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. 5.1 In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Anr. V. Mst. Katiji Others (1987) 2 SCC 107 , the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Tribunal raising grounds as reproduced above. 8. Before us, the assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 32. 9. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ground 1 to 4 of the appeal relate to the disallowance of prior period expenses, details of which is as under: 1. Bonus ex-gratia of Rs.2,66,843/- 2. Professional charges of Rs.3,53,934/- 3. Commission on sale of Rs.4,16,600/- and 4. Transport charges of Rs.1,43,459/- 9.1 It is the contention of the assessee that all these expenses were crystallized the year under consideration and therefore, the assessee has rightly claimed in the present year. Regarding the Ground No. 1 of disallowance of bonus expenses, the assessee submitted that for the year ending on 31.03.2012, the assessee provided bonus/ex-gratia @ 8.33% to its employees which was payable on Dussehra i.e., October/November 2012. However, due to agitation and unrest of employees, the Management decided to enhance the payment of bonus/ex-gratia @ 20% instead 8.33% as provided in books and sanctioned by the Director vide letter dated 01.11.2012 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that when the liability of the assessee under agreement had arisen and accrued in August 2002 when agreement was executed, therefore, the liability of the assessee to pay for the period January 2002 to March 2002 arose and crystallized in August 2002. If the assessee had shown the Prior Period Expenses and the Assessing Officer had not excluded while working out the current year taxable income than there was no reason on the part of Assessing Officer to disallow only one part of the Prior Period Adjustment i.e. Prior Period Expenditure. It was held that the addition by Assessing Officer was not sustainable. We have noted that the facts of the present case in principle are similar. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Non-such Tea State Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) held that when the liability to pay is crystallized in the year of approval, therefore, deductable in computing the profit from the period ending when liability was crystallized. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Saurashtra Cement Chemical Industry Vs CIT 213 ITR 523 (Guj) held that merely because the expenses related to a transaction of an earlier year does not become a liability payabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration and not in the year of the sale. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has also held the claim of the assessee as justifiable, however, directed the AO to verify the fact and ascertain the amount as otherwise payable. 16. We are of the view that if the Assessing Officer has not already verified then we direct him to verify the payment and allow in view of finding of the Ld. CIT(A). This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The Ground No. 4 of the appeal relates to liability of transport charges of Rs.1,43,459/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 18. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the said charges were paid to the transporter subject to the condition that goods are delivered in good condition and report by the customer for the same. The Ld. counsel submitted that the goods of the assessee i.e. industrial valve being of sophisticated nature so even damage to the thread of valve will also make the valve unfit for purpose and customer report was essential. In view of the absence of the report of the customers, the expenses were not booked in assessment year 2012-13 and only after receipt of the relevant report expenses we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
