9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of disallowance of contingent liability debited in profit and loss account of the assessee. 3. Since the issue is common and appeals were heard together, these appeals are being consolidated for the sake of convenience. Since the facts are identical, we are adjudicating this issue with reference to the figures from asstt. year 2004-05. 4. In this case Assessing Officer noted that as per Audit Report filed alongwith return of income, it was mentioned that in Col. 17 (amounts debited to the profit and loss account) of Audit Report, in sub-column (k) particulars of any liability of contingent nature, the auditor has mentioned an amount of Rs. 3,29,54,482/ -. Assessing Officer observed that further perusal of computation of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook filed by the appellant in the form of audit report. Ongoing through the profit and loss account of the appellant for the period 31st March 2004, it is seen that no such liability has been debited by the appellant in its profit and loss account. I have also examined the Schedule 13, 14 and 15 of the balance sheet wherein detaiIs of the item wise expenses is given. It is seen that no such liability is appearing in these expenses debited to profit and loss account. The contingent liability has been mentioned in the notes forming part of the accounts which is required for disclosure purpose only. It is further mentioned that in 3CD report at Column 17(K), the auditor Sh. Kapil Agarwal has inadvertently mentioned Rs. 329.54 lacs as contingen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see company for the concerned period. Assessing Officer has failed to comprehend the Accounting treatment in this regard. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the contingent liability added by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted. 10. As regards the ground by the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in admitting the additional evidence in the form of clarification from the Auditors without seeking remand report from the AO. We find that the same is not relevant. We find that the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted simply on the basis of that fact that amount involved was not debited in the profit and loss account. The clarification by the Auditors only clari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
