TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses. These expenses relate to earlier years which have been written off in accordance with statutory provisions - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) after examining the matter and the reply of the AO, find that the Assessing Officer has drawn certain adverse inferences where there was, according to the AO non-compliance / non-satisfactory compliance to his show-cause letter. As carefully considered the submissions of the A.R. Find that the AO has made the disallowance without recording any specific finding, and therefore the basis for such disallowance is not supported. In so far as the claim for writing off deferred expenditure on portal development, agree with the contention that this practice is being followed on a regular basis from year to year, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es raised on similar, identical facts in all the appeals above and with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and pass a consolidated order for the sake of brevity. 3. First we shall take up ITA No.615/Kol/2016 for Assessment Year 2002-03. 4. Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide its order dated 31.03.2006 at a total loss of ₹ 1,88,78,736/-, thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 10.01.06 u/s 154/155 of the Act and rectified the mistake alleged to have been occurred in the original assessment proceedings wherein he added the prior period expenses and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of miscellaneous expenditure in the fact and circumstances of the case. It is noted that the miscellaneous expenses including the preliminary expenses and pre-operative expenses, deferred revenue expenses and portal website development expenses. These expenses relate to earlier years which have been written off in accordance with statutory provisions. The CIT(A) examined the record and by referring to the practice being followed on a regular basis from year to year by the assessee deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of CIT(A) is reproduced hereinbelow: (i) Amortization of preliminary expenses: - preliminary e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accepted. 9. In view of the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) in his order at Page No.5 as mentioned hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and it is justified. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Now we shall take up ITA No.617/Kol/2016 for Assessment Year 2004-05. 11. Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee filed application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963 and raised following ground: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not served within the stipulated time prescribed in the Act resulting in the reassess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the notice issued beyond the prescribed time limit as required u/s 143(2) of the Act. Therefore, without bringing on record the relevant evidence to show that was issued beyond time limit, we cannot give any finding on such bald submissions but however in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) for his fresh consideration and pass order by giving reasons thereon. Therefore, ground raised under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963 by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and in view of the decision taken by us in ground raised by the assessee under Rule 27, grounds raised by the Revenue in the main appeal becomes academic and requires no adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
