TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar. CIT(A) also took note of the accounts of the assessee company getting scrutinized by Statutory Auditors, Internal Auditors and also by the Controller of Auditor General of India. It is pertinent to note that none of them had given any adverse remarks about the aspect of prior period expenditure. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had categorically given a finding that all the expenses reflected in the prior period expenses except the one which were voluntarily disallowed by the assessee in the return of income, though debited to prior period expenditure during the year, got crystallised during the year under consideration and hence, becomes allowable expenditure. None of these findings given by the ld. CIT(A) were rebutted by the Revenue before us. We also find that the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of yet another Public Sector Undertaking in CIT vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd.[ 2013 (7) TMI 118 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had an occasion to go through the same issue. Thus we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee in respect of prior period expenditure. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed - ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3.1. The appeal for the A.Y.2001-02 is taken as the lead case herein with the consent of both the parties and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for A.Yrs. 2002-03 and 2003-04 also except with variance in figures. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a State Government undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of electricity. We find that the ld. AO by placing reliance on the figures mentioned in the tax audit report submitted by the assessee under the head prior period expenses / prior period income , sought details of the same during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee furnished the details of prior period income and prior period expenses which are duly tabulated by the ld. AO in page 5 of his order. The assessee earned prior period income of ₹ 84,48,47,317/- and prior period expenditure of ₹ 944,00,69,767/-. The net prior period expenses amounting to ₹ 859,52,22,450/-. The ld. AO brought to tax the amount already offered by the assessee in the return in respect of prior period income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and Inspection under the D.O.I.A. for Inspection work and there are number of Inspection teams attached to circle offices for carrying out regular Inspection work. Ld.AR of the appellant mentioned that appellant's audit is conducted by CAG. In spite of above at the instant of the Government Audit, certain items of expenses and Income pertaining to earlier period are required to be accounted for. These items are nothing but spill over of the earlier period and which were not considered while submitting returns for the earlier period. MSEB Accounts thus prepared in keeping with the rules of Electricity (Supply) (Annual Accounts) Rules 1985 prescribed under section 69 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and C.A.G. also accepts this accounting system. 8.4 The appellant further submitted that the total income of the appellant required to be computed was in accordance with the method of accounting regularly followed by it as laid down by the provisions of sec. 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this connection attention was drawn to the accounting standard No. II issued by the CBDT notified vide notification no. SO69(E) dtd. January 25,1996 in terms of which it has been stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst of all, if the appellant has worked out the loss computed as per return of income after disallowing and adding back short provisions for income tax amounting to ₹ 156,66,42,865/- and short provision of depreciation amounting to ₹ 31,02,01,481/-, the same two items cannot be added back again to the returned loss which has been adopted by the AO. The AO is directed to verify and make necessary corrections in this regard. 8.10 So far as the other items are concerned, the treatment given to them is according to the guidelines framed for preparing the accounts of the electricity companies. The facts showing the entirety of the appellant's operations and its huge net work explains the time taken to account for various expenses. The accounts of the appellant are audited by internal auditors and statutory auditors under the Companies Act and the Income-tax-Act. Further the reference to the Board's Circular is also in favour of the appellant. The AO has not come out with any finding that any of these expenses are not allowable as deduction. Since the expenses are otherwise allowable, the appellant cannot denied the deduction which has been claimed following pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enses except the one which were voluntarily disallowed by the assessee in the return of income, though debited to prior period expenditure during the year, got crystallised during the year under consideration and hence, becomes allowable expenditure. None of these findings given by the ld. CIT(A) were rebutted by the Revenue before us. We also find that the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of yet another Public Sector Undertaking in CIT vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd., reported in 42 Taxmann.com 40 had an occasion to go through the same issue. The question raised before the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court was as under:- B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 92,91,343/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of prior period expenses? 4.2. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court disposed off the aforesaid question by holding as under:- 4) Regarding Question B : a) In its return of income for assessment year 2004-05 while declaring total income of ₹ 100.76 crores the Respondent-assessee claimed an expenditure of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. e) We find that the liability in respect of work/services rendered in earlier year was crystallized only on receipt of the bill in the current assessment year. Moreover, the method adopted by the respondent assesses has been accepted by the revenue for the earlier assessment year and also while accounting for the income earned in respect of the work done in earlier years. In the circumstances, the Revenue is required to adopt consistent approach and allow the expenditure which was crystallized during the assessment year under consideration as done in the earlier years. This finding of fact has not been shown to be perverse. In view of the above we see no reason to entertain question B as the same does not raise any substantial question of law as it is essentially a finding of fact arrived at by two authorities concurrently. 4.3. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court referred to supra, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee in respect of prior period expenditure. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
