TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditional evidence relating to accrual and genuineness of commission payments of Rs.24,66,237/- treated by the AO as prior period expenses ignoring that: (i) The fact that the said expenditure was prior period expenditure had also been pointed out in the tax audit report in form 3CD. (ii) It has been admitted by the assessee as mentioned at page 3 of the order of the Ld. CIT (A) that the said expenses were related to the sales of the earlier year. (iii) The powers of the Ld. CIT (A) to set aside issues decided in scrutiny assessment have been curtailed with effect from 1.6.2001. (iv) By not calling for a remand report from the AO on the issues set aside for verification, the Ld. CIT (A) has not decided the appeal in accordance wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome. (Disallowance of Rs.24,66,237/-)" 4. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) which was allowed with the following observations:- "7.1 The assessee debited Rs. 24,66,237/- under the head prior period expenses. The AO disallowed the same as not related to the F.Y. relevant for the impugned assessment year. 7.2 The AR has explained that the expenses are related to the sales of F.Y. 2003-04 relevant for A.Y. but the transaction and the expenses got finalized and the expenses got accrued in F.Y. 2004-05 relevant for the impugned A.Y. 2005-06. The AR has brought on record the various documents mainly debit notes issued by the parties/agents to prove his contention. 7.3 As per general prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g year 1952, that is in the assessment year 1953- 54, should be a matter of no consequence to the Department; and one should have thought that the Department would not fritter away its energies in fighting matters of this kind. But, obviously, judging from the references that come up to us every now and then, the Department appears to delight in raising points of this character which do not affect the taxability of the assessee or the tax that the Department is likely to collect from him whether in one year or the other year." The situation does not seem to have changed over the last fifty years and the Revenue continues to agitate the question whether tax is leviable in a particular year or in some other year. This is hardly a question ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income Tax(A) accepted the additional evidence without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. After careful consideration of submissions and impugned orders of the authorities below, we observe that the Assessing Officer noted that claimed expenditure were not related to the year under consideration for assessment and the same were not liable to be claimed as expenses during the current year related to the assessment in the impugned order. The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) considered the explanation offered by the assessee's representative and held that the assessee's representative has brought various documents mainly debit notes issued by the parties a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was called upon to produce by the [Assessing Officer] ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the 2[Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d) where the [Assessing Officer] has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal." 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and on bare reading of the impugned order and findings thereon, we are inclined to hold that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) did not consider any additional evidence violating Rule 46A of the Rules. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) impliedly followed the provisions of Rule ....