9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- As per submission made in the paper book where in the assessee has given the details of the expenditure along with the reasons as to why the same is claimed in the year under consideration and the reasons being that the bill of the party received late and assessee being company without supporting documents it is the system of the assessee company not to book the claim of the expenditure. We find force in the arguments of assessee and in the absence of any adverse finding of the lower authorities the same is allowable in the year of its claim. Even there is no whisper in the order of the lower authorities about the allowability of the expenditure as the same was disallowed under the contentions that the expenditure are of prior period based on the reasoning submitted by the assessee company we vacate the disallowance and thus, the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. Accrual of income - addition based on form 26AS - as argued assessee is a service provider in the health care sector and the assessee regularly following a particular method of accounting merely receipt shown in the form 26AS cannot be termed as income of the assessee company - HELD THAT:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. Since, there is no other adverse observation about the valid revised return of income filed by the assessee and considering the decision of the apex court as referred herein above, we direct the ld. AO to consider the revised return of income filed by the assessee and assessee s income be computed accordingly. In terms of this observations the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. Ad-hoc disallowance of expenses - expenditure debited under the heads staff welfare expense and conveyance expenses with reference to ledger account - HELD THAT:- We respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of M/s D.C. Construction [ 2019 (5) TMI 1941 - ITAT RAIPUR] where in the co-ordinate bench held that the AO has made a lump sum disallowance without pointing out any concrete evidence against the assessee and lump sum disallowances made by the AO was deleted. As the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) could not find any defect on various claims made by the assessee, ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out any specific defect not sustainable. Being consistent with the above decision of the co-ordinate bench, we hold that the in absence of any specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of not completing the assessment and computing income on the basis of revised return of income filed by the assessee on 01.12.2015. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in partially confirming the disallowance of expenditures of Rs.2,38,307/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 5,25,071 made by the ld. AO by considering the same as prior period expenses 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in partially confirming the disallowance of leave encashment expenses of Rs 3,55,358/-, out of total disallowance of Rs. 4,24,259/ made by the ld. AO by applying the provisions of section 43B. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the lump sum disallowance of Rs. 50,000 made by the Id. AO out of staff welfare expenses and conveyance expenses. 5. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal. 4. First of all, we take up the ITA No. 688/JP/2018 for A. Y. 2013-14. 5. The first ground is in relation to disallowance of un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as under:- Opening Balance of liability 427564 Liability arised during the year 400947 Payments during the year 159894 Payments upto date of return filing 180582 Balance liability remained unpaid 488035 5.3 The ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) not appreciating the fact presented by the assessee. We find force in the argument of the AR of the assessee that there cannot be any disallowance out of opening balance because the same has already been taken care of in the earlier year only the disallowance is required to be sustained to the extent of the amount debited in the profit and loss account during the year and remained unpaid. 5.4 We find from the above contentions raised before us that the assessee has already added a sum of Rs. 2,20,365/- out of liability of Rs. 4,00,947/- debited to profit and loss account and therefore, there is no separate disallowance is required to be called for as liability debited in the profit and loss account is for an amount of Rs. 4,00,947/- and bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt decision of division bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Resolve Salvage Fire India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 841/Mum/2019 where in the coordinate bench observed that The issue of delay in the payment of service tax is directly covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathura v. CIT reported in 254 ITR 799 in favour of assessee. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below : The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the interest on arrears of sales tax is penal in nature and has rejected the contention of the assessee that it is compensatory in nature. In taking the said view the High Court has placed reliance on its Full Bench's decision in Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 TTR 387 (All.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee states that the said judgment of the Full Bench has been reversed by the larger Bench of the High Court in Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 732 (All.) (FB) wherein it has been held that interest on arrears of tax is compensatory in nature and not penal. This question has also been considered by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 830 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the assessee has already incurred expenditure and the assessee being private company same is finalized in the year under consideration the same is required to be allowed in the year in which the same is finalized and debited in the books of account. 7.1 Per contra, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the addition is required to be sustained based on the findings given by the ld. CIT(A). 7.2 We have gone through the facts of the case and submission made in the paper book where in the assessee has given the details of the expenditure along with the reasons as to why the same is claimed in the year under consideration at page 68 to 78 and the reasons being that the bill of the party received late and assessee being company without supporting documents it is the system of the assessee company not to book the claim of the expenditure. We find force in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee and in the absence of any adverse finding of the lower authorities the same is allowable in the year of its claim. Even there is no whisper in the order of the lower authorities about the allowability of the expenditure as the same was disallowed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, then in order to advance cause of justice, evidence was to be admitted. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Jai Prakash Tyagi v.. ITO (2016) (72 taxmann.com 183) held that where in course of appellate proceedings, assessee produced a valuation report for construction of new house property from registered valuer for claiming deduction under section 54F, Commissioner (Appeals) could not refuse to accept said additional evidence and reject assessee's claim merely on ground that no such claim was made before Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Chandigarh ITAT in the case of Lakshmi Energy Foods. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2014) (44 taxmann.com 248)held that where assessee had sufficient reasons which prevented it from producing various documents before Assessing officer, documents sought to be admitted as additional evidence. Thus, in view of the above, we request your Honour to kindly admit the additional evidence produced by the appellant as it is well within the jurisdiction of your Honour. However, CIT(A) has not considered the same without giving finding on the same. A perusal of above details shows that the said party has credited and disbursed the sum of Rs. 8,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission made by the ld. AR of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted the reasons as to why the receipt shown in 26AS and in the books of accounts are at different figure. The assessee company is engaged in the health care and heals the patient and the amount receivable/received is from the claim amount from the payee. The ld. AR of the assessee contended that this seems to be mistake on the part of payee and merely the receipt is shown in the 26AS, it cannot form of the part of the income of the assessee. As the details relating to the difference is placed before us as an additional evidence we admit that additional information and direct the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the contentions of the assessee that the income from M/s E-meditek Solution Ltd. is in in fact receivable or not? If required, the Assessing Officer may call for the relevant confirmation from the payee and call for the reconciliation of income with that of the account and after giving proper opportunity of heard decide the issue in accordance with law so as to whether in fact the receipt as alleged is in fact received of the assessee company or not. Therefore, we restore the matter to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the assessee in this appeal No. 689/JP/2018 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised by both the parties and bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No. 688/JPR/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 shall apply mutatis mutandis in ITA No. 689-JP-2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 for this ground no. 2, 3 5 the same is allowed in terms of the observations made by us in ITA No. 688/JPR/2018. 13. The only left-over ground is ground no. 1 and 4. The ground no. 1 is in relation to the completing the assessment without considering the revised return of income filed in time by the assessee company. For this ground the ld. CIT(A) has recorded his finding that the apex court in the case of Goetze India Limited Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 that the ITAT can consider such claim of the assessee made by the assessee in revised return of income. He further noted that the apex court did not consider this liberty to the CIT(A) and thus he has confirmed the view of the assessee. Since, there is no other adverse observation about the valid revised return of income filed by the assessee and considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
