9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een preferred by the revenue as the appellant under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 30.05.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad (Tribunal) in I.T.A. No. 643/Hyd/2001 for the assessment year 1996-97. 3. Though the appeal was admitted on 01.04.2004, substantial questions of law were not framed as required under Section 260-A of the Act. However, from the memo of appeal, we find that the following two questions have been proposed as substantial questions of law: (A) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the additional charges and interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for us to traverse through the orders passed by the revenue authorities inasmuch as both the questions are covered by decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. 7. Insofar the first question is concerned, the same is squarely covered by a decision of this Court reported in CIT v. Andhra Ferro Alloys (P) Ltd. 2012 (349) ITR 255. In the said decision, a Division Bench of this Court had examined the contours of Section 43B of the Act and thereafter, held as follows: Section 43B of the Act does not specifically mention about the electricity charges. The proviso to the Section says that an assessee has to pay the actual liability on or before the due date applicable in this case for furnishing the return of income. In the instan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry liability and the Revenue has to allow them as deduction irrespective of whether or not the same has been paid and notwithstanding that the assessee has disputed any liability to pay any part of such charges." 8. Regarding the second question, the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 7 SCC 489 = 1998 (229) ITR 383, which was explained by the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 7 SCC 489 = 1998 (229) ITR 383. This issue cropped up again before the Supreme Court in Wipro Finance Limited v. CIT 443 ITR 250 wherein it has been clarified that there is no bar for an assessee to set up a fresh claim before the Tribunal though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
