TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention advanced by learned counsel for the respondent, yet he has no objection to the matter being remanded back to the AO. Accordingly, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned order under Section 197(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 202122 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AO to determine the said application afresh in accordance with law. Respondent no. 2 shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner within four weeks. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Kalra and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountants of India. 5. According to him, this provision for slow and ageing inventory gets reversed in the beginning of the following year in the books of account for the succeeding financial year; consequently, the reversal of provision (which goes to enhance the book profit for the succeeding year) is claimed as a deduction in the computation of taxable income for that year, to avoid double taxation. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out that the AO passed the assessment order accepting the returned income for the AY 201819 after the petitioner had provided an explanation with respect to the inventory provision. 7. He states that deduction of tax under Section 194O of the Act at the rate of 1% would result in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not examined by the AO. 13. Mr. Bhatia, however, states that as now in the writ petition the petitioner has clarified that the provision creating slow and ageing inventory in relation to the relevant AY has not been claimed as a deduction in the said year, the matter can be sent back to the AO for re-examination. 14. Though in rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the petitioner disputes the contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondent, yet he has no objection to the matter being remanded back to the AO. 15. Accordingly, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned order dated 28th April, 2021 [received vide email on 18th June, 2021] passed by respondent no. 2, Income Tax Officer ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
