9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion that the expenditure itself is bogus per se. The expenditure has been incurred for the business and it is not the case of the A.O that, it is not allowable u/s 37 (1) - Since, the assessee has already paid more tax in Financial Year 2009-10, which is in the tax bracket of 30% and the claim is revenue neutral, i.e. that is there is no loss of Revenue. While deleting the addition made by the A.O, Ld.CIT(A) has also considered all the above facts. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the facts by the CIT(A) and also the conclusion arrived by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) which requires no interference. Accordingly, we inclined to dismiss the Revenue s Grounds of Appeal. - I.T.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal requires to be decided on merit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed its income for Assessment Year 2011-12 declaring total income at Rs. 1,06,69,74,349/-. The assessee being a regional rural established under RRBs Act, 1976, during the year under consideration engaged in the business of providing banking services. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS scrutiny and an assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed at an assessed income of Rs. 1,07,59,71,080/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. As per the AIR Information, the assessee has made a deduction of the expenditure of Rs. 13,90,612/- which was paid/credited in Financial Year 2010-11, but was accrued/became due during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acket of 30-1. Therefore, submitted that, there is no loss to the Revenue in deleting the addition made by the Ld. A.O. 8. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. It is emerges from the material on record that, the assessee was maintaining books of accounts which being duly audited by expert, i.e. Chartered Accountant. The report of the chartered accountant has been furnished before the A.O. At the time of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure only on the ground that, it has been claimed as prior period expenditure although the assessee was following the merchandise system of the accounting. On the contrary, the A.O has not of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
