TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (8) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of telephone poles which were to be supplied to P&T Department. The single contention of the Revenue relates to that supply contract. It is aggrieved with the order of the CIT allowing deduction of Rs. 29,191. The assessee in its trading account included on the credit side a sum of Rs. 4,01,141 with the following narration: "Estimated enhancement on account of price variation as per term of tender on the supplies bill to C.T.S. (P&T)." By taking into account this amount the return of income was filed. However, in the course of assessment proceedings the assessee filed a letter dt. 22nd Jan., 1983 before the ITO claiming a deduction of Rs. 29,191 in respect of the amount of Rs. 4,01,141. The deduction was claimed on the footing of irrecov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....because the correct credit as per the bills admitted by the P&T Department should have been Rs. 3,71,949. The Revenue has come in appeal to the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and noted the relevant facts above. From the facts it is clear that the assessee made an estimated credit for extra sale price recoverable from the P&T Department on the poles supplied on account of price variation. No bills even were issued to the Department undisputedly and thus the action of the assessee was totally unilateral. In other words, the assessee estimated the extra amount which could be claimed due to price variation clause as per the term of the tender. The P&T authorities examined the position from their angle and found that the price....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first ground merely wants to support the order of the CIT(A). This ground is redundant and needs no separate consideration. We have already upheld the decision of the CIT(A) above. In view of that ground No.2 too does not deserve any consideration. We may also mention in passing that the assessee is not justified in asking for any direction for an assessment year not under appeal before the Tribunal. As both the grounds of the cross objections are infructuous it is dismissed. 6. Taking next the assessee's appeal for the asst. yr. 1980-81 it is noticed that the only issue raised there in is about the charging of interest under s. 139(8) of the IT Act. The CIT(A) has rejected the assessee's ground on this issue by firstly observing that ....