TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and the Department has not disputed about this in the past. We also agree with the contention that the AO has clearly erred in drawing adverse inference that these expenditures were not covered by actuarial valuation. AO's plea that supporting evidences have not been produced is also not cogent as rightly contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee, the particulars supporting against expenditures are duly attached with the concerned vouchers. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any voucher of the assessee company has been found to be lacking credibility. We also note that ITAT, Ranchi Bench, in assessee s own case [ 2013 (5) TMI 858 - ITAT RANCHI] had upheld the assessee s claim of prior period expenditure for asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 61,803/- Sales tax : Rs. 12,79,877/- 2. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), Ranchi, has erred by allowing claim of deduction made/debited to the P L account amounting to total Rs. 1,04,23,877/- without taking into consideration the justification of addition made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The assessee in this case is a public sector undertaking engaged in consultancy business. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings on perusal of profit and loss account had observed that the assessee had debited prior period expenses amounting to Rs. 34,50,88,296/- for the assessment year shown under adjustment relating to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,04,23,877/- was added pertained to prior period. It is noted that the assessee maintains books as per the mercantile system of accounting and it had different clients and offices spread throughout the country and hence, at the end of the financial year, it was not possible to account for all the expenditure incurred by the various offices and branch offices. It is also noted that there may be certain increase in rate and, hence, the difference was paid to the subsequent year. Vouchers have been received from the employees after 31st March of the financial year for the expenses incurred in the previous year. It is also noted that looking into the turnover of several hundred crores of assessee, such an expenditure which had spilled over othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re duly submitted before the Assessing Officer. It has also been submitted that the relevant vouchers of the expenditures contained the supporting evidence. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any short-coming has been noted in the vouchers maintained by the assessee. In these facts and circumstances, it is assessee s claim that the Assessing Officer has erred in making the disallowance and ld. CIT(A) is quite correct in deleting the disallowance. 4. Upon careful consideration and hearing both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee s submissions are cogent. The assessee is a public sector undertaking and it has got a vast organization. In its system of account when expenditures are not reported or id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
