TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal against the said decision is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court does not dilute binding nature of this judicial precedent.- Decided against assessee Addition towards Prior Period Expenditure - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of assessee as relying on Adani Enterprises Ltd [ 2016 (7) TMI 1250 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] assessee being a company was charged uniformly for all years and would therefore, have no revenue implication of whether the expenditure was recognised in this assessment year or earlier year. The second ground was that in any case, the Revenue had recognised the prior period income. If that be so, according to the Tribunal, it would be unfair not to recognise the expenditure also of the prior period. - IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court is binding on us. The mere fact that an appeal against the said decision is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court does not dilute binding nature of this judicial precedent. As regard dismissal of SLP in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 185 (SC), it is only elementary that when a SLP is dismissed by a non-speaking order, it does not constitute a law declared by Hon ble Supreme court, and as such, it is not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The authority, for this proposition, is contained in a series of judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court, including, inter alia, in the cases of State of Manipur vs. Thingujam Brojen Meetai, (1996) 9 SCC 29; Om Prakash Gargi v. State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the tax rates pertaining to the assessment year in question and the immediately preceding year are uniform, hence no disallowance can be made only on the ground that an expenditure pertaining to an earlier year is claimed in the current year. 6. We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 20.07.2017 in the case of Pri. CIT vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd in Tax Appeal No. 573 of 2016, wherein the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has held as under:- Revenue has filed this appeal raising the following questions for our consideration: (A) Whether on the facts and in the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even the Revenue does not dispute that the company would be taxed at the same rate in the present assessment year or during earlier year. It is also not disputed that prior period income was declared by the assessee during the current year which is also accepted by the Revenue. No question of law therefore, arises. So far as question (B) is concerned, we notice that the Tribunal has merely remanded the issue. No question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed. 7. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Adani Enterprises Ltd (supra), we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to ₹ 2,18,090/- towards Prior Period Expenditure. 8. In the result, ground no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
