DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI vs. SHIVALIK SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD, HIMACHAL PRADESH

O R D E R

PER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle– 6(3), Mumbai against the order of the Ld. CIT Appeal- 54 Mumbai and following grounds of appeal were raised: -

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,11,13,042/- in respect of provision for Pit covering expenditure made in the assessment order despite the fact

2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs 2,80,32,480/- in respect of provision for Post closure expenditure made in the assessment order despite the fact that no such expenditure was incurred during the year and estimation is not ascertained liability?"

3. "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing provision for pit covering expenses and provision for post closure expenses despite the fact that the assessee had not provided details of actual expenditure made in respect of provisions made during earlier years and hence could not establish basis of computation of provision?"

4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order relying on the decision of his Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 05.05.2022 in the same case for A.Y 2015-16 & 2016- 17 despite the fact that Revenue had not accepted the decision of the Ld CIT(A) in the same case for A.Y 2015-16 & 2016-17 on merit but did not file appeal before Hon'ble' ITAT as the tax effect was lower than monetary limit as per CBDT Instruction No. 03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 and the case does not fall under exception clauses mentioned in Para 3 of the said circular and Para 10 of the Circular No. 3/2018