Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 735 - ITAT DELHIDisallowance on account of LC Discounting Charges in the Revised Return filed - when the liability arose? - year of assessment - Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed LC charges neither provided nor claimed in the original return. Assessee's explanation that the liability crystallized in the impugned assessment year was also rejected - AO also took adverse inference for non-furnishing of the details by the assessee - AO objected admission of additional evidence by CIT-A - HELD THAT:- Till the signing of memorandum of understanding the CIT(A) accepted that the liability did not crystallise. When the liability crystallised in February 2012, the same is to be assessed for AY 2012-13. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has contradicted himself when he says that the liability arose after there was a memorandum of understanding on 21.02.2012 still the same has to be allowed in AY 2011-12 i.e. in the year earlier than the date of MOU. The decision referred by the Ld. CIT(A) from Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nonsuch Tea State Ltd. [1974 (11) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] also supports the proposition that the liability arose only when the MOU was signed. In that case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the liability to pay remuneration arose only when government conveyed its approval and not prior to that date. Same proposition is emanating from the decision of CIT vs Exxon Mobil Supra [2010 (9) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which Ld. CIT(A) has himself referred. In this view of the matter when Ld. CIT(A) is himself accepting and giving case laws for the proposition that the liability arose only when the MOU was signed, there is no justification for the same to be accounted for in the current assessment year. The mere submission that there was the opinion from a C.A. for this claim has no legal sustainability dehors any cogent reasoning. Once it is clear that the expenditure was not to be accounted for this year, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not at all sustainable. As regards other aspects wherein Ld. CIT(A) is accepting the assessee's submission that five of the parties have replied directly to the Assessing Officer, which the AO has not so acknowledged. We find that nothing stopped the Ld. CIT(A) from examining the assessment records as to whether the AO's claim that there was no response from these parties is correct or not. In this view of the matter, we do not approve the Ld. CIT(A) doubting the claim of the Assessing Officer that some of these parties did not reply. Be as it may the adjudication of the claim on merit is only of academic interest, as we have already held that the amount was not liable to be accounted for in the present assessment year. We set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the reasoning that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the L.C. discounting charges were to be allowed in the present assessment year. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purpose.
|