9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) holding that the rejection of Books of Account in terms of Section 145 of the Act was not justified? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the expenses of Rs. 36,37,375/? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) allowing 50% of depreciation amounting to Rs. 27,59,570/? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contentions raised by the Revenue upheld the view of the CIT(A) holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the Books of Account. (d) The only grievance of the Revenue before us is that the Percentage Completion Method of accounting followed by the respondent- assessee resulted in varying profits/income being offered for tax in different assessment years. In support, our attention was invited to page 7 of the Assessment Order. (e) We are unable to understand the objection urged by the Revenue. The Percentage Completion Method of accounting itself implies that the profit/income offered to tax would depend upon the percentage of a particular project being completed. This would necessarily vary from year to year an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the CIT(A). (d) We find that once the accepted Books of Accounts have been admittedly subjected to audit, then expenses claimed therein have to be allowed. Unless of course, it is the Revenue's case that the expenses were not incurred for the purposes of the business or that the expenses were bogus. Even before us the Revenue does not urge that the expenses claimed were bogus and/or not incurred for the purpose of business. (e) Therefore in the face of concurrent finding of fact of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the question as proposed does not give rise to a substantial question of law. Accordingly, question no.(ii) is not entertained. 5. Regarding question no.(iii) and (iv): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of 50% as it was used for less than 180 days during the year under consideration. In appeal, the Tribunal upheld the finding of the CIT(A) on both the issues. (d) Before us the grievance of the Revenue as urged by Mr. Kotangale is that the hotel business of the respondent-assessee was not commenced during the previous year relevant to the subject Assessment Year and the equipments on which depreciation was claimed was not used in the subject Assessment Year. However no facts in support of the aforesaid submission has been shown to us. (e) We note that the Assessing Officer had in the respondent-assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) had filed a remand report. In the remand report no objection was taken to the evidence led by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
