9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/DEL/2014 (Assessee's appeal) (1) That Ld CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in framing the assessment at an income of Rs 575,37,61,042/- against the returned income of Rs. 531,47,22,540/-. (2) That the Ld CIT (A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 13,28,38,502/- lying with DGH as the fund lying with DGH in custody could not have been brought to tax in the year under appeal since the appellant board is consistently following cash system of accounting for recognizing such income & it was never remitted by DGH to the appellant in the year under appeal. Consistency has to be followed by the tax department unless there is change in the facts of the case . (3) It is contented that the accounting entries and method of treatment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be allowed. The assessee, in the past, had been claiming the royalty payment on the basis of actual payment i.e. cash basis till Assessment Year 2007-08. However, from the Assessment Year 2008-09, the method of accounting in pursuance of C & AG directions was changed for some receipts and expenditure from cash to accrual method of accounting. Consequentially, the assessee claimed royalty payment on accrual basis on the basis of the quantification as per the existing guidelines of the Office of the Directory General of Hydrocarbon (DGH). The Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 30,62,00,000/- as regards to expenditure on royalty as prior period expenses. The assessing Officer also added Rs. 13,28,38,502 on account of amount lying in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were the same in both the years, department should not fritter away its energies in raising questions as to the year of deductibility/taxability. The Ld. AR also relied upon the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's decision in case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd [220 CTR 404] wherein it is held that when there was no change in the rate of tax for the particular Assessment Year, the question, therefore, is only with regard to the year of deduction and it is not necessary to determine the year of taxability of the amount. 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has changed the accounting system without any proper cause or reason in the present assessment year. And thus, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance of Rs. 30.62 crores, the addition made on account of income amounting to Rs. 13.28 crores, which has already been accounted for in the next year, and thus prayed for deletion of the addition. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Firstly we take up assessee's appeal. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has followed the same method of accounting which is receipt basis for taking remittance on DGH as an income. The change in account in policy in reference to CAG's observation/report was basically to strengthen the fund management of the Assessee Board. The assessee accounted for Rs. 4657 lacs as an income from the sale of data from DGH. From the perusal of the records it can be seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
