9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of provision for expected loss/defect liability amounting to Rs. 2,37,99,162/=, where the same is not ascertained and contingent in nature ?" 2. The facts leading to the present Appeal in nutshell are as under : 2.1 The assessee filed return of income on 30th October 2005 for A.Y 2005-2006 declaring loss of Rs. 20,79,62,690/=. The Assessing Officer framed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["Act" for short] determining loss at Rs. 16,96,15,838/=. While determining the aforesaid loss, the Assessing Officer made the following addition/disallowance : [1] Delayed Payment of PF & ESI u/s. 43B, Gift, Boni & Chandla Expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... una Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in straightway relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Private Limited [Supra]. It is submitted that even assuming that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Private Limited [Supra] was applicable and the estimation was permissible, in that case also, the learned Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the actual estimated loss. 6.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that as such, the Assessing Officer, while f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Crores as on 31st March 2005 and has got total carried forward loss of Rs. 25.59 Crores at the end of A.Y 2006-2007, as rightly observed by the learned CIT [A], no motive of reduction tax liability can be assigned to the assessee for the change in the method of accounting of provision for liability. It is not in dispute that the assessee had no tax liability even in the subsequent year. Under the circumstances and even otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned ITAT has committed any error in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 10. No substantial question of law arises, as sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant-Revenue. 11. In view of the above and for the rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
