TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer. On the basis of material available on record, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal have allowed the claim with regard to the assessee's prior period expenses. The first substantial question of law is therefore, answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. NO.424 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2021 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE J., This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in directing to accept the claim of ₹ 82,43,612/- in respect of expenses claimed by the assessee's employees and other agencies by accepting the explanation offered by the assessee that it books were audited and that the vouchers were voluminous to be produced before the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that the onus is on the assessee to prove it's claim of crystallization of liability and recorded perverse finding? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent is a public limited company engaged in the business of power generation. The respondent filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue by this court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE VS. ING VYSYA BANK LTD.', (2020) 114 TAXMANN.COM 506 (KARNATAKA) and vide judgment dated 17.03.2020 in I.T.A.No.143/2014 passed in the case of assessee itself for Assessment Year 2013-14. The aforesaid submission has not been fairly disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgments, the substantial questions of law Nos.3 and 4 are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the tribunal grossly erred in allowing prior period expenses of ₹ 2,07,60,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not make any submissions on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the first substantial question of law in fact, does not arise for consideration in this appeal. It is also urged that the issues raised by the revenue in this appeal are revenue neutral. In this connection reference has been made to Circular dated 02.11.2016 passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions of Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD', 358 ITR 295 (SC), and 'CIT VS. BIHARI INVESTMENT (P) LTD', 299 ITR 1 (SC). 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the assessee has furnished the details of pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
