Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur's Order in Appeal No. CIT(A)-3/6/2018-19, dated 29.04.2019, involving proceedings u/s.154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
2 ITA.No.162/NAG./2019
“On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the disallowance amounting to Rs.16,30,873/- of prior period expenses cannot be subject matter of rectification order u/s 154 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Auditor himself in the Tax Audit Report has reported the amount of prior period expenses as per clause 22.b, Annexure E of Form 3CD of his report hence the fact is apparent from records.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs.16,30,873/- without appreciating the fact that otherwise also the prior period expenses are not an allowable expenditure unless a provision is made for the same. The AO was therefore justified in disallowing the prior period expenditure amounting to Rs.16,30,873/-. 3. Any other ground which may be taken with the permission of the Hon’ble Tribunal.”
It next emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that there is hardly much a need for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix once it has come on record that we are dealing with sec.154 rectification proceedings. We further note that the learned Assessing Officer had invoked his impugned jurisdiction to disallow prior period expenses of Rs.16,30,873/- after having framed his sec.143(3) assessment dated 21.03.2016.
3 ITA.No.162/NAG./2019
The Revenue has vehemently argued before us that the Assessing Officer had rightly initiated the impugned rectification process for the purpose of disallowing the assessee’s foregoing prior period expenses. He fails to dispute the clinching fact emerging from the case records that the Assessing Officer had very well issued sec.142(1) notice seeking to disallow the same on 26.02.2016 i.e., prior to sec.143(3) assessment which stood duly explained by the assessee on 08.03.2016. These relevant documents duly form part of the case records before us at pages 3 to 6 of the assessee’s paper book. That being the case, we quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) that purpose of sec.154 rectification is only to deal with apparent mistakes on record than those involving detailed roving enquiries and confirm the CIT(A)'s action reversing the Assessing Officer’s impugned action to this effect. Ordered accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.11.2023.