TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay justify an assessee who has incurred expenditure in a particular year to spread and claim it over a period of ensuing years. In fact, allowing the entire expenditure in one year might give a very distorted picture of the profits of a particular year. In the case in hand, the AO in the earlier years had examined as well in this year this aspect, therefore we are of the considered view that on this ground re-opening is not justified. - Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No.3017/Ahd/2010 – A.Y. 2002-03, I.T.A. No.3056/Ahd/2010 – A.Y. 2004-05 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2014 - SHRI N.S. SAINI AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JJ. For the Revenue by :- Shri M.K.Singh, Sr.D.R. For the Assessee by :- Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.R. O R D E R PER SHRI K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essor. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may b restored to the above extent. 3. It is transpired from the records that vide order-sheet entry dated 02/04/2014, the Revenue was directed to file Form No.35 to rectify the defects along with grounds of appeal. It is also transpired from the records that the defect notice was issued by the Registry of this Tribunal on 03/11/2010 which was duly received on 04/11/2010. The Revenue has not removed the defect. Under these facts, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby rejected being defecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, confirmed the addition made in respect of the disallowance of deferred expenditure and deleted the addition made in respect of bad debts relying on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT reported at (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC). 6.1. The ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition in respect of deferred expenditure claimed by the assessee. 6.2. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was allowed under the scrutiny assessment. It is settled proposition of law that ordinarily, revenue expenditure which is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred. It cannot be spread over a number of years even if the assessee has written it off in his books over a period of years. However, the facts may justify an assessee who has incurred expenditure in a particular year to spread and claim it over a period of ensuing years. In fact, allowing the entire expenditure in one year might give a very distorted picture of the profits of a particular year. In the case in hand, the AO in the earlier years had examined as well in this year this asp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
