9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above income in the Assessment Year 2011-12, the A.O. is not justified in disallowing in the Assessment Year 2010-11. Therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference and the same is upheld. Thus the Revenue appeal in ground no. 5 is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. - ITA No. 1020/Ahd/2014 ITA No. 127/Ahd/2015 ITA No. 2353/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2023 - Smt. Annapurna Gupta , Accountant Member And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar , Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul K. Patel , A. R. For the Revenue : Shri S udhendu Das , CIT - DR ORDER PER : T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - These appeals are originally disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing officer has without considering the appellant replied termed the NA expenditure as expenditure incurred towards getting permission for NON Agricultural Land. In fact the appellant has not applied for any permission for conversion of agricultural land in to non-agricultural land. The correct is NAA charges i.e. Non Agricultural Assessment. The appellant has reimbursed the said expenditure for to GIDC towards the land revenue tax payble to government on yearly basis. Therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer considering the nature of expenditure on wrong footing should be deleted. 7.3 I have gone through the fact of the case, assessment order, the submission made by appellant and case relied upon. From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture as it is not related expenditure of the appellant. The GIDC has waived the expenditure in the year FY 2010-11 i.e AY2011-12. The GIDC by letter of feb 2011. Therefore the appellant has offered the said expenditure claimed as income in the next FY ie 2010-11 relevant Ay 2011-12. The said fact is also admitted by the Assessing Officer in para 11 of the assessment order. However the Assessing Officer has disallowed the same as the appellant has debited before it reaches to finality. In fact the year end of the appellant was 31.03.2010 and the letter was received on feb 2011. i.e. almost the after the 11 months. Further the appellant has credited its profit and loss account for AY 2011- 12 on receipt of the letter in the year of its recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 in response to the 142(1) notice by the Assessing Officer wherein it is categorically submitted as follows: 1. NAA Charges of Rs.5,22,99,430/-: The said amount is comprises of Rs.20,455/- for lease rent, Rs.82,08,000/- for NAA and Rs.4,40,70,975/- for infrastructure up gradation charges which is required to be paid every year. As assesse has submitted in its early date submission that infrastructure up gradation charges was waived by GIDC letter on. The assesse company therefore credited Rs.4,40,70,975/- as income in the financial year 2010-11 i.e. AY 2011-12. The copy of profit and loss account for F.Y. 2010-11 is attached for your reference (Annexure A). Moreover, Non Agriculture Assessment (NAA) charges as paid by GIDC to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order. However the Assessing Officer has disallowed the same since the assessee has debited before it reaches to finality. 8.1. Considering the above facts and the assessee has offered the income during the Assessment Year 2011-12 thereby the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition for the present Assessment Year 2010-11. The Ld. CIT-DR could not contravent the above factual position recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. As the assessee has offered the above income in the Assessment Year 2011-12, the A.O. is not justified in disallowing in the Assessment Year 2010-11. Therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference and the same is uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
