2014 (3) TMI 527 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT affirms disallowance of prior period expenses for assessment year 2005-06. Assessee's appeal dismissed.

Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd. Versus The DCIT Circle-1, Ahmedabad

The ITAT upheld the decision of the A.O. and CIT(A) to disallow prior period expenses for the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessee failed to demonstrate ... Allowability of prior period expenses – Held that:- Major portion of prior period expenses is on account of interest expenses - the Assessee has also not produced any evidence with respect to the terms and conditions on which the Assessee had borrowed the amount - CIT(A) while upholding the order of AO has given a finding that the AO had allowed opportunity to the Assessee to give the details of prior period expenses and to prove as to how those expenses crystallized during the year but no such details were submitted by the Assessee either before AO or CIT(A) - the Assessee had submitted details and proved that the expenses crystallized during the year but no such details were submitted - Assessee has not placed any material to controvert the findings of CIT(A) – there was no material has been placed to prove that the liability of interest crystallized during the year – thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order CIT(A) – Decided against Assessee. Issues involved:Allowability of prior period expenses in the assessment year 2005-06.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad for the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessee, a company, had earned income from speculation business in shares and commodities. The assessment was framed under section 143(3) with the total income determined at Rs. Nil after adjustment of brought forward loss and depreciation. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed prior period expenses amounting to Rs. 48,40,856/-. The Assessee contended that these expenses should be considered in earlier years if not allowable in the current year. However, the A.O. disallowed the expenses as the Assessee did not provide proof of payment and did not show how these expenses crystallized during the year. The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision stating that prior period expenses are allowable only if crystallized during the year, and the burden of proof lies with the Assessee. The Assessee then appealed to the ITAT.During the appeal before the ITAT, the Assessee argued that a major portion of the prior period expenses was interest payable to another group concern, Gujarat Adani Port Ltd., pertaining to the financial year 2003-04. The Assessee claimed that the final decision on the interest payable was made in the financial year 2004-05, making the expenditure crystallize during the year under appeal. The Assessee also cited previous instances where similar expenses were allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) contended that the Assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting and should account for expenses on an accrual basis, and since the interest expense did not pertain to the year under appeal, it was not allowable.The ITAT noted that the Assessee failed to provide evidence supporting the crystallization of the expenses during the year. The Assessee did not produce details or terms of the loans on which the interest was accounted. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that the Assessee did not submit necessary details to prove the crystallization of expenses, and the decisions relied upon by the Assessee were not applicable to the current case. Therefore, the ITAT dismissed the Assessee's appeal, upholding the disallowance of prior period expenses.In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the order of the A.O. and CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of prior period expenses, stating that the Assessee failed to prove the crystallization of expenses during the assessment year 2005-06. The appeal of the Assessee was dismissed.