TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting addition of ₹ 5,10,00,000/- on account of income accrued to the assessee ignoring that : a) the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and this income due from Cochin International Airport Ltd. has already accrued to the assessee. b) reliance placed by ld.CIT(A) in Godhra Electricity Company vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) is misplaced as in the present case as per note 7 of Notes to Accounts, a draft CNS/ATM agreement between the assessee and Cochin International Airport Ltd. was under re-negotiation and Ministry of Civil Aviation has issued guidelines to the assessee that charges on providing CNS/ATM facilities shall accrue to the assessee. 3. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the Revenue. Thus, even as per rule of consistency, this issue is settled in favour of the assessee. Moreover, on merits also, the order of the learned CIT(A) is correct because unless the payer accepts the assessee s claim, no right is accrued to the assessee by making suo motu entry in its books of account. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) should be sustained. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and have perused the material placed before us. We find that the learned CIT(A) relied upon the decision of his predecessor for AY 200203 and has also observed that as per judicial discipline, he should follow the order of his predecessor unless there is change in facts or in law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive the income or that income had accrued to him. (emphasis by underlining supplied by us) 6. The ratio of the above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee s case. When CIAL has not accepted the liability to pay the assessee for the use of CNS/ATM facility, it cannot be said that any right has accrued in favour of the assessee to receive such amount. When no such right is accrued to the assessee, it cannot be assessed as income in the hands of the assessee merely because the assessee had made the provision in its books of account. The Revenue itself has accepted the assessee s claim for AY 2002-03 [by accepting the order of the CIT(A)] and in AY 2003-04, 2004-05 200506 (by not making any addition) in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed in the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer has assessed the prior period income and disallowed prior period expenses. He cannot adopt different yardstick for assessing the income and allowing the expenditure. Considering the totality of the above facts, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) in this regard. The same is sustained and ground No.2 of the Revenue s appeal is rejected. 9. Ground No.3 of the Revenue s appeal reads as under:- In the facts and circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 8,30,391/- on account of disallowance of extra depreciation @60% on typewriters ignoring that as per the IT Rules 60% depr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated as allowed. ITA No.3842/Del/2011 :- 13. The only ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads as under:- The ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by allowing the claim of the assessee of ₹ 3,16,8,999/- on account of fringe benefits, ignoring the legal position that for claiming any deduction from the return already filed, the assessee must revise its return and the same cannot be claimed by simply filing a letter before the AO as has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We find that the learned CIT(A) has discussed this issue in paragraph 10 of his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified this position in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra). 15. With regard to the merit of the levy of fringe benefit tax on the calibration expenditure, the Additional Commissioner in the remand report before the CIT(A) admitted as under:- However, considering the merits of the submission with regard to claim for non inclusion of calibration expenditure incurred on Air Craft owned by AAI included in the levy of FBT; it is seen that FBT is not attracted on the expenditure under reference. 16. Thus, the Additional Commissioner himself has admitted that FBT is not attracted on the calibration expenditure incurred on aircrafts owned by the AAI. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Revenue s appeal. The same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
