TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceeds of baggase, disallowance on account of treatment of capital expenses as revenue expenses in molasses fund - Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation on tube-well - Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation treating it as plant and machinery - Held that:- As relying on assessee's own case [2015 (3) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] we decline to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee. Excess provision of gratuity - Held that:- Deduction of gratuity is allowable as per Section-43B on the basis of actual payment. The A.O., in its order has observed that if this amount is pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85 onwards, then assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovind Krishna,R.K.Upadhyay For the Respondent : S. Agrawal,R.R. Agrawal,R.S. Agrawal ORDER (Delivered by Dr. Satish Chandra,J.) The present appeal is filed by the department against the impugned order dated 30.04.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. Nos. 6412 622/Del/1994 for the assessment year 1991-92. On 06.11.2012, the appeal was admitted by a Co-ordinate Bench on the following substantial questions of law:- (1). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of closing stock amounting to ₹ 2,85,81,310/-? (2). Whether on the facts and circumstances of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ials available on record. Question No.1. The grievance of the department is pertaining to undervaluation of the closing stock for ₹ 2,85,81,310/-. After hearing both the parties, it appears that identical issue has come up before this Court in the assessee's case (In ITA No. 211/2011), where vide order dated 18.09.2013, it was held that the changed method of accounting was more scientific and did not result any evasion of tax. Thus, issue was decided in favour of assessee. By following the earlier order (supra), we find no reason with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the same is hereby sustained. Hence, answer to the substantial question of law is in favour of the assessee and against the department. Quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the assessee has returned back amounting to ₹ 16,06,569/- is not pertaining to any particular assessment year but relating to many assessment years. The assessee has not given any break up of the assessment yearwise gratuity written back so the amount was added back during the current assessment year. However, the liberty was granted to the assessee to produce the evidence and if amount is pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85 onwards then assessment order will be rectified to that extent. But both the appellate authorities have observed that the amount was returned back pertaining to the gratuity but without mentioning any reason. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it may be mentioned that dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te authorities have allowed the same as a business loss. By considering rival submissions and on perusal of the records, it is not evident whether the amount in question is penal in nature or not, if it is penal in nature then the same cannot be allowed as a business loss, if it was optional either to export the sugar or to pay the amount then the same can be allowed as business loss. Hence, we set-aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the A.O. to decide the same on merit in view of above discussion and by providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. When we restore the matter back then answer to the substantial question of law is not required. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is partly allowed as sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
