9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his order in assessee's own case for AY 2006-07 in appeal No. 195/CIT(A)/Asansol/w11/2008-09 dated 18.06.2014. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT's order in assessee's own case for AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 dated 27.07.2016. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. We find that according to the AO, grounds in respect of sports and recreation are not incidental to business of the assessee company, hence he disallowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by following his earlier year's order dated 18.06.2014 and according to an agreement between management (Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries & Others) in which assessee company is required to pay such grants as per National Coal Wages Agreement. We find that this issue was decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 vide order dated 27.07.2016, wherein the Tribunal vide para 22 and 23 of its order has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company has debited to P&L Account a sum of Rs. 83,97,000/- towards Environment Expenditure. The AO disallowed the same by observing that the assessee could not file any details of such expenses and in absence of such details the expenses made by the assessee could not be verified and remained unverifiable. Hence, he disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition by following his order in assessee's own case for AY 2006-07 in appeal No. 195/CIT(A)/Asansol/w-11/2008-09 dated 18.06.2014. Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT's order in assessee's own case for AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 dated 27.07.2016. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. We find that according to the AO, Environment Expenses as claimed by the assessee are not verifiable and hence, he disallowed the same. On appeal Ld. CIT(A) delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any acceptable reason as to why the expenses should not be disallowed and, therefore, he added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition by following his order in assessee's own case for AY 2006-07 in appeal No. 195/CIT(A)/Asansol/w-11/2008-09 dated 18.06.2014. Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us. 9. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT's order in assessee's own case for AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 dated 27.07.2016. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. We find that according to the AO, assessee was unable to produce any acceptable reason for not disallowing the expenditure. Hence, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by following his earlier year's order dated 18.06.2014. We find that this issue was decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 vide order dated 27.07.2016, wherein the Tribunal vide para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved, revenue is in appeal before us. 12. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT's order in assessee's own case for AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 dated 27.07.2016. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. We find that according to the AO, these expenses are not incidental to business of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing that no valid reasons were assigned by the AO for the aforesaid disallowance. He also observed that the assessee explained that this expense is for security and Medical Personal as per stranding guidelines on hygiene and safety. On the basis of the explanation offered by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance as made by the AO by observing that the expenses incurred were wholly and exclusively for business purposes and eligible for deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We find that no such disallowances were made in any of the earlier years and these expenses were duly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the decision any changes in return of income can be made only by way of a revised return of income and not in any other manner. 14. In this case the claims are made at appeal stage. If the same is considered, the appellant is making use of a platform not available to majority of assessees in the country. Only those returns of income taken up for scrutiny or rectification come up in appeal. Appeal is for settlement of grievances and is not a platform to extent a statutory time limit set by section 139(5) for making amendments to return of income. Errors in return of income can be corrected upto end of one year from the end of assessment year by filing revised return of income. Every return of income is expected to be correct and complete and is verified by the assessee to be correct. Hence appellate platform cannot be used to extent the statutory set time limit imposed by section 139(5) by which items not claimed in return of income is considered and benefits granted to appellants. 15. The appellant gave exhaustive submission on the matter W.r.t decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323. It was stated that the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sam Glo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory fund or trust created for the benefit of its employees. According to the assessee, contributions were made to the schools with proper approval of the competent authority to develop proper educational infrastructure not only for the children of the workmen of the company but also for the benefit of public at large. These expenses, according to the assessee, were made particularly as a staff welfare expenses and particularly for social cause as its commitment to the society in the form of CSR activities, which the assessee is bound to do as per the statute. The Ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the assessee's own case for AYs. 2003-04 to 2005-06 wherein the Tribunal based on the notification of the National Coal Wage Agreement and relying on various Hon'ble High Courts' decisions were pleased to allow the very same claim of the assessee. We note that the AO has made the disallowance based on the tax audit report filed by the assessee before him and since the assessee has not made any claim in the revised return, the AO has disallowed the claim. During the first appellate proceeding, the assessee has made the claim which was not entertained by the Ld. CIT(A) on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
