Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee in this appeal is aggrieved on a disallowance of �4,03,83,834/- claimed as prior period expenditure.
ITA No. 539/Mds/2016 :- 2 -:
2. Facts apropos are that assessee engaged in the business of interior designs and fittings had filed its return for the impugned assessment year declaring loss of �1,92,87,247/-. Assessment was completed on 31.03.2014 assessing the total income of the assessee at ‘Nil’. Assessing Officer while completing the assessment disallowed a part of the TDS credit citing a reason that income on which tax credit was claimed did not pertain to the impugned assessment year.
Assessee moved in appeal before the Commissioner of 3.
Income Tax (Appeals), wherein apart from assailing the disallowance of part tax credit, it also raised a plea for allowing prior period expenditure of �4,03,83,834/-. As per the assessee it had filed a letter dated 28.03.2014 before the Assessing Officer claiming this. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) though he allowed the claim for tax credit did not accede to its request for allowing the claim for prior period expenditure.
Now before us, the ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower authorities placed a copy of the letter dated 28th March, 2014 filed before the ld. Assessing Officer and stated that Assessing Officer had omitted to consider the claim for prior
ITA No. 539/Mds/2016 :- 3 -: period expenditure made through this letter though certain other items mentioned in the said letter found a place in the assessment order.
Per Contra, ld. Departmental Representative relying on the order of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 submitted that no claim other than those made through a valid revised return could be considered by the ld. Assessing Officer.
We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. 6.
Letter dated 28th March, 2014 filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, on which strong reliance has been placed by the assessee is reproduced hereunder:-
M/ s. SRIDHAR & SUMATHI New No.141 Old No. 81 Bororhiyar Street, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Plot 179 -B/2, Kaveri Rangan Nagar, Saligramam, Chennoi - 600 093. Email ;sundaramsridhar@hotmail.com Ph. 23760069 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Date The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax. Company Circle - VI(3), Chennai - 600034. 28th March, 2014 Dear Madam, SUB: Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd. AIY 2011-12.
ITA No. 539/Mds/2016 :- 4 -:
As required by you we are enclosing the following details: 1. Ledger extract of Delhi International Airport Ltd. (DIAL 1 &3) for 2010-11. From the Ledger it is clear that there is a due of Rs.1 0,64,83,006/- from the party as on 1.4.2010. Out of this the company has received Rs.5.20 Crores during 2010-11 and hence it is reflected in 26AS. Six receipts aggregating to Rs.5.20 Crores are highlighted.
We have also attached the Ledger extract of C Krishnaiab Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd.(CKC) for 20 10-11. The retention account of CKC is also attached for 2010- I l. Five receipts of Rs.2.12 crores is against the opening balance of both these accounts and hence it is reflected in 26AS. During the audit of financial year 2012-13, prior period expenditure of Rs.17,51,94,2801- had been accounted, for that year. Out of these Rs.4,03,83,384/- pertain to the expenses upto 31.03.2011. We are enclosing a break up of the same with details. We request you to allow these expenses also during the assessment year 2011-12. Yours sincerely, The letter has been filed on 28th March, 2014 and assessment was completed on 31.03.2014. Second page of the assessment order does mention in the table therein, a sum of �5,20,00,000/- received from M/s. Delhi International Airport. This amount is mentioned in para 1 of the letter dated 28th March, 2014 reproduced supra. Thus part of the information given by the assessee in the said letter appears to have been considered by the assessment order. Be that as it may, Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the judgment in the case of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 had clearly held in the case of Geotze (India) Ltd (supra)
ITA No. 539/Mds/2016 :- 5 -: that restrictions on the powers to consider a new claim made by the assessee was only on the Assessing Officer and not on the appellate authorities. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer can consider the allowability of the claim of prior period expenditure made by the assessee through it letter dated 28th March, 2014. We therefore setaside the orders of the authorities below and remit the issue regarding claim of prior period expenditure back to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical 7. purpose.
Order pronounced on Friday, the 28th day of October, 2016, at Chennai.