TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 26-8-2011 granted partial relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT (A), the assessee is now in appeal before us and raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,94,765/- on account of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act without proper appreciation of the facts, submissions and legal position as well as arguments put forth in the written submissions filed before the AO. and the CIT (A). In view of the facts and submissions filed coupled with legal position in support thereof, the impugned addition requires to be deleted/cancelled. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,04,669/- on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s. 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment made for purchasing calendars with the name of the company printed on it. The contract in question being for sale and not being a works contract, the provisions of Section 194C do not apply and accordingly the impugned addition ought to have been deleted keeping in view the legal position in this respect. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar. The claim of the appellant is not acceptable. The fact remains that the expenditure does not pertain to the current year and the assessee has neither deducted the tax nor paid the said tax during the previous year under consideration and, therefore, no deduction can be allowed in the current year in respect of that expenditure. The claim of the appellant that no TDS was required to be deducted and, therefore, disallowance of expenditure was not warranted is not relevant. The relevant point is that the expenditure pertains to earlier year and the appellant in that year had himself made a disallowance for some reason in the return. The appellant has also claimed in his written submission that the first appellate authority can consider the claim of expenditure where the same was not entertained during the assessment proceedings or was not claimed in the return of income and no return was filed. This claim of the appellant is also not acceptable for the similar reason that the expenditure pertains to earlier year and there is no change of facts in the present year. In view of all the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the action of the A.O. in disallowing the claim in the com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Ld.CIT (A). Further the case laws relied upon by Ld. A.R. are also distinguishable on facts and in view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and thus this ground of the assessee is dismissed. 10. Second ground is with respect to the addition of Rs. 1,04,669/- on account of non deduction of TDS for the payments for purchasing calendars. 11. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that assessee has paid Rs. 1,04,669/- for calendars printing work but no TDS was deducted and for non deduction of TDS the assessee's submission was that the contract for printing calendar was including material and was therefore the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS. The submission of the assessee was not found acceptable to the A.O. for the reason that according to him the contract was given by the assessee for printing of calendars and there was no separate contract for material and /or labour work and A.O. was therefore, of the view that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194C of the Act and since assessee has failed to deduct TDS he disallowed Rs. 1,04,669/-. 12. Aggrieved by the order of A.O. assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars in earlier and subsequent years and in those years, in the assessments framed u/s. 143(3), no disallowance on account of non deduction of TDS has been made by the Revenue Authorities. We however find that to support the contention of allowing the expenses in earlier and subsequent years, the relevant assessment orders are not on record. We therefore, are of the view that in the interest of justice, the issue needs to be re-examined at the end of A.O. and if no disallowance of similar expenditure has been made in earlier years and or subsequent years, the addition made by the A.O.in the year under consideration be deleted. We therefore, restore the matter to the file of A.O. to decide the issue as per the directions given hereinabove. Thus this ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground No.3 is with respect to the addition on account of prior period expenses amounting to Rs. 1,69,023/-. 17. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O. noticed that assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 5,82,373/- which pertain to earlier years. A.O. was of the view that in the absence of any evidence placed by the assessee to prove that the expenses crystallized during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per book and submitted that the auditor has also certified the crystallization of the liability during the year. He therefore, submitted that the addition made by the A.O. be deleted and for which he also placed reliance on the decision reported in the case of CIT v/s. CIT v/s. Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 239 ITR 505 (SC) (supra). 20. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of AO and CIT (A). 21. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present case is about the disallowability of prior period expenses. We find that the Ld. CIT (A) while upholding the disallowance has noted that the assessee has not been able to prove that the liability of the expenses which has been claimed has crystallized during the year under consideration and the claim of assessee is not supported by documentary evidence and that there was no evidence to that effect was either placed before the A.O. or before Ld.CIT (A). Before us also the assessee has not placed any material on record to demonstrate the crystallization of liability in the year under consideration. Before us, Ld. A.R. has stated that the prior period....