9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the outset, we find that there is a delay of 176 days in appeal filed by the assessee. During the course of hearing, when defect was brought to the notice of the learned AR present, he has submitted that delay in filing of appeal is mainly due to lockdown imposed by the Govt. on account of spread of Covid-19 infections and in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court suomotu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, if the period of delay is covered within the period specified in the order of the Apex Court, then same needs to be condoned in view of specific problem faced by the public on account of Covid-19 pandemic. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, fairly agreed that delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. Having heard both sides and consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as compared to payment of prepaid finance charges. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in concluding, that, the liability to make the payment for finance charges occurred in the current year but the payment was made to secure the benefit over the tenure of loan On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the prepaid finance charges were to be paid as a pre-condition to obtain the borrowing and were not a contingent liability to be incurred at a future date. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the submissions file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered equivalent to amount paid towards any 'tax'. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, your Appellant wishes to draw attention to the fact that this ground was not taken in the appeal filed with the learned CIT(A). However, such omission was neither deliberate nor contumacious but has come up out of the legal position which has come to the notice of the Appellant subsequent to completion of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A). The Appellant craves leave to add to, or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before or during the hearing of the appeal. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company filed its return of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 340, and observed that though the liability to pay finance charges is incurred in the year of availing loan facility, the payment is secure a benefit over a number of years. There is a continuing benefit to the business of the company over the period and therefore, the liability should be over the period of loan. Therefore, disallowed prepaid finance charges claimed by the assessee in the computation statement, amounting to Rs. 12,27,11,592/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the Assessing Officer, in light of certain judicial precedents and argued that the treatment in the books of accounts is not rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or books of accounts, the same has been amortized over the period of loan and classified as prepaid finance charges, but because expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the same has been claimed as deduction in the year of payment, and in this regard he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 and its decision in the case of Indian Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52. 9. The ld. DR, Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, there cannot be different treatment for any expenditure, i.e., one for the purpose of book and one for the purpose of computation of profits and gains from business and profes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra), and held that once actual payment is made towards any expenditure, merely because a different treatment was given in the books of accounts, could not be factor, which would deprive assessee from claiming the entire payment of interest as deduction in the year of payment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co Ltd vs CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363, held that entries in books of accounts is not relevant to decide the issue of deductibility of any expenditure. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has incurred the expenditure towards finance charges and also paid during the impugned assessment year itself. Since, the assessee has already paid finance charges, in our considered v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
