Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (10) TMI 847

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dance with the Act. Thus this appeal of revenue is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed - against revenue. - I.T.A.No.520/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2012 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JJ. Appellant by: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Sr. DR PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-XIX, New Delhi dated 01.11.2010 for AY 2007-08. 2. The only ground of appeal related to commission of payments reads as under:- The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law by setting aside to the file of the AD, the issue of verification of additional evidence relating to accrual and genuineness of commission payments of Rs.24,66,2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s:- On perusal of column C of Schedule-12 of Form 3CD of the Audit Report furnished u/s 44AB, it is observed that the assessee company has debited Rs.24,66,237/- as prior period expenses. According to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, prior period income is taxable u/s 41 of the Act but the prior period expenses are not allowable to be claimed as expenses during the current year. Since these expenses do not relate to the year under consideration, therefore, these expenses are being disallowed as duly discussed with the AR of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Disallowance of Rs.24,66,237/-) 4. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... served as follows:- "We have often wondered why the Income tax authorities, in a manner such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income Tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax chargeable on the assessee in two different I years is different; but in the case of income of a company, tax is attracted: at a uniform rate, and whether the deduction in respect of bonus was granted in the assessment year 1952- 53 or in the assessment year corresponding to the accounting year 1952, that is in the assessment year 1953- 54, should be a matter of no consequence to the Depart .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the assessee company debited the disputed amount as prior period expenses which are not liable to be claimed as expenses during the current year. Since prior period expenses did not relate to the year under consideration, therefore, these expenses were rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer. He further submitted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) set aside the findings of the Assessing Officer without any sound and justified reasons because the expenditure claimed by the assessee were related to the prior period and this fact was pointed out in the tax audit report in Form 3CD. The DR also submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) accepted the additional evidence without calling for a remand report from the Assessin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s before the Assessing Officer. Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules is as under:- 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the [Assessing Officer], except in the following circumstances, namely : (a) where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the [Assessing Officer] ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient caus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates