TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AO’s finding has been upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) and hence there is no grievance to the Revenue. In the result this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of prior period expenses - Held that:- The assessee has incurred prior period expenses of ₹ 16,61,43,508/-. It had prior period income of ₹ 10,22,60,782/-. The net prior period amount of ₹ 63,88,272/-, was already added by the assessee in the computation of income. Thus, the finding of the First Appellate Authority that there is a double addition of ₹ 63,88,272/- is factually correct. As far as the balance amount is concerned the assessee’s contention is that the amount has crystallised during the year, as the assessee came to know about these expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-XVI, New Delhi dt. 30.01.2013 pertaining to the AY 2009-10. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a Public Limited Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of textiles. It filed its return of income electronically (e-return) on 28.7.2009 declaring income of ₹ 1,16,540/-. Thereafter a revised return of income was filed on 31.3.2010 declaring nil income. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) on 23.12.2011 determining the total income at ₹ 32,04,18,100/-, inter alia making disallowance of expenses u/s 14A, disallowance of prior period expenses and disallowance on account of foreign exchange, variations claimed as revenue expenses. 3. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Act wherein it is provided that the assessee has to establish the usage of that plant and machinery in that particular year, only then the assessee can claim depreciation and additional depreciation on the same. 8. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice. There is no petition for adjournment either. Under the circumstances we dispose of the case ex parte on merits qua the assessee after hearing the Ld.D.R. 5. Heard Mr.Gunjan Prasad, the Ld.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. 6. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, on perusal of orders of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period income of ₹ 10,22,60,782/-. The net prior period amount of ₹ 63,88,272/-, was already added by the assessee in the computation of income. Thus, the finding of the First Appellate Authority that there is a double addition of ₹ 63,88,272/- is factually correct. 7.3. As far as the balance amount is concerned the assessee s contention is that the amount has crystallised during the year, as the assessee came to know about these expenses only in the F.Y. 2008-09. 7.4. The second limb of the argument of the assessee is that, which has been consistently following the policy of netting out prior period income with prior period expenses and the net effect was disclosed in the computation of income. It was also submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
