2016 (9) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., processing and trading of seeds, tractor and agriculture implements. The assessee claims that the accounts are audited. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer desired the assessee to explain : (i) The expenses claimed to the tune of Rs. 9,82,874 being prior period expenses, (ii) Contribution to the LIC Group Gratuity Scheme amounting to Rs. 1,92,82,605 and, (iii) Contribution to the State Renewal Fund at Rs. 7,58,134. 3. After raising query and seeking explanation all the three amounts as aforesaid were disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the premise (i) that the prior period expenses pertained to earlier assessment years and is not required to be allowed, during the previous year relevant to the yea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the order of the Tribunal and needs consideration. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and have considered his submissions and have perused the impugned order as also the order of the lower authorities and we are of the view that no substantial questions of law emerge out of the order of the Tribunal so as to call for interference of this court. 7. In so far as the prior period expenses is concerned a finding of fact has been recorded by the appellate authorities that approval for payment of the said expenditure was given during the year under appeal therefore the liability crystallised during the year and similar method was being regularly followed by the assessee consistently and when there is a finding recorded by the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise the Commissioner ought not to have slept over the application for approval for more than 25 years. The appellate authorities are well justified in coming to the said conclusion. Needless to mention that a finding has been given by the Tribunal that the amounts are being disallowed by the learned Assessing Officer from year to year at least from the assessment year 1996-97 i.e. almost 20 years but is being allowed regularly in appeal therefore, for this reason also we reject the claim of the Revenue. The Assessing Officer ought not to have made a repeated addition merely for this purpose and a litigation of this nature ought not to have come before this court as appeals all throughout is being allowed year after year. On the one hand the....