TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of prior period expense - HELD THAT:- Case of the assessee is that certain expenditures were crystallized during this year and, therefore, deduction of such expenditures deserves to be allowed to the assessee. The learned First Appellate Authority has recorded a categorical finding that these expenses have not been crystallized or pertaining to this year and they cannot be allowed in this year. After going through the well reasoned findings of the learned CIT(A), we do not find any error in it. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is also rejected. - ITA No. 1102/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2020 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT :- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Baroda dated 29.02.2012 passed for Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, out of which ground No. 3 is a general ground which does not call for recording of any specific findings; hence rejected. 3. In ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on also, the assessee had identified and written off such obsolete inventories as per accounting method followed by it. Against the contention of the learned Assessing Officer that there should have been gradual write off, assessee has submitted that it has consistently followed the accounting principle laid down by AS2. Therefore, the value of inventory is recognized at lower of cost or net relizable value. Thus the practice of writing down inventories below cost to NRV is consistent with the view that the assets should not be carried in excess of amounts expected to be realized from their sale or use. Further, the claim of the assessee is that the assessee makes assessment of the stock available at each balance sheet date and an appropriate write off is affected in the accounts; therefore, there cannot be any gradual obsolesce/write off of the inventory. 5. Learned Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and disallowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by following the order of the ITAT in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2005-06 for similar issue. The findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to T₹ 35,560/- out of which inventories amounting to T₹ 10,000/- were considered as non moving and have been written off. But besides this, no other technical report or working for determining these items as non moving was furnished. Nothing has been furnished to show the cost at which they were being reflected in the balance sheet in the earlier year. The fact that a round figure of ₹ 1 crore has been claimed as deduction on this account also indicate absence of such working. Hence, on the basis of these discussions and relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for A.Y. 2005-06, the A.O.'s action of disallowing this deduction is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 6. In response to the notice of hearing, M/s. Deloitte Hakins Sells LLP earlier used to appear on behalf of the assessee; however, vide letter dated 30th September 2019, Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Authorized Representative on behalf of M/s. Deloitte Haskins Sells LLP submitted that insolvency proceedings have been taken up against the assessee and Shri Kiran Chinubhai Shah has been appointed as Interim Resolution Professional by the NCLT. He placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id purchases was booked in AY 2007-08 and the bills were issued in AY 2007-08 and received in AY 2008-09 and therefore accounted in AY 2008-09 as prior period, the same should be allowable for AY 2007-08. 9. With the assistance of learned Departmental Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. On this issue, we straightway take note of the findings of the learned CIT(A) which read as under:- 6.2 I have given my careful consideration to the facts of the case, arguments advanced by the AR as also the observation of the AO. So far amounts of ₹ 21,31,832/- (₹ 10,39,780/- plus ₹ 10,91,502/-) are concerned, these expenses pertain to FY 2005-06 and bills relating to them have been accounted for in FY 2007-08. Hence under no circumstances, these expenses can be allowed as a deduction for AY'2007-08. Hence, disallowance of this amount is confirmed. 6.3 So far as balance amount related to purchases (₹ 78,95,142 ₹ 10,39,780 = ₹ 68,55,362/-) is concerned, the appellant has nowhere demonstrated that the goods purchased vide these bills were received by it and were accounted for in its stocks during FY 2006-07. Hence it can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
