Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 671 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Disallow claim of ‘brand owner’s surplus’ and payment of ROC fee - Held that:- Though there is dispute with reference to quantification of the amount, there is no dispute with reference to basic liability. What assessee was entitled was already determined by way of agreement and any excess collections made by the assessee are to be paid to M/s. Shah Wallace Distilleries Ltd. Therefore, even though there was a dispute between the parties with reference to quantification of the amount, the basic liability is an ascertained liability, as is evident from the subsequent events. The liability in fact, was crystallized at higher amount of ₹ 5.50 crores. Even though assessee has not claimed higher amount at the time of assessment, it could have reduced its taxable income as the A.O. made certain additions to the returned income. Assessee has limited its claim to the amount provided in the books of accounts. We are of the opinion that the amount is ascertained liability and not a contingent liability. Even though the same was reported in the notes to the account as one of the contingent liability and disclosed as a material fact, the amount is not contingent liability and therefore, we are of the opinion that order of Ld. CIT directing the A.O. to disallow is not correct on the facts of the case. Moreover, as seen from the record, the assessment order passed by the A.O. was under the provisions of section 147 in which A.O. has examined the books of accounts and in fact made additions with reference to the merger/conversion of the erstwhile firm into a company as on 01.07.2005. We are of the opinion that A.O. has examined all the issues before completing assessment. Similar claims in the hands of firm were also made. Therefore, opinion of CIT in treating the amount already allowed as contingent liability can certainly be considered as change of opinion. On the principles governing the issue of jurisdiction, we cannot uphold the direction of the Ld. CIT. Therefore, we modify the same and direct A.O. to allow the amount as originally allowed in the assessment order. The order of Ld. CIT is modified to that extent and assessee’s grounds are allowed accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|