TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 51,19,950/- on the alleged plea that this income is pertains to the A.Y.2010-11, without considering the fact and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that out of the above income, the income amounting to Rs. 37,12,500/- pertains to the A.Y. 2011'12, which was already offered by the appellant in the next year and making an addition again will tantamount to double addition which is not acceptable as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ths period i.e. January, 2010 to March, 2010 fell in the impugned financial year, and therefore, the assessee credited proportionate amount of Rs. 12,27,500 to its Profit & Loss Account as income of the impugned financial year. But, the Assessing Officer was of the view that since invoices have been raised for the full amount, total amount of Rs. 51,19,950 should be treated as income of the impugned year. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein order of AO was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing it has been brought to our notice by ld. Counsel of the assessee that assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. Thus, income accru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ach. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had given clear guidance for deciding such matters in the case of CIT vs Nagri Mills Co Ltd (supra) by observing as follows: "3. We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax chargeable on the assessee in two different years is different; but in the case of income of a company, tax is attracted at a uniform rate, and whether the deduction in respect of bonus was granted in the assessment year 1952- 53 or in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was quite clear that not only was it fruitless (on merits) but also that it may not have added anything much to the public coffers." 9. It is further brought to our notice that tax rates in both the years are reported to be same. Under these circumstances, we find no justification to sustain the addition made by the AO and, therefore, the same is directed to be deleted and grounds 1 & 2 are allowed. 10. Ground 3: In this ground, the assessee has challenged the action of the AO in not accepting the business income offered by the assessee company and by rejecting all expenses. 11. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel drew our attention on the assessment order wherein the AO did not grant benefit of expenses without giving any reasonin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of SSSMPL that it had given advance of Rs. 1.50 crores to the assessee through its director, but since the assessee has not shown the receipt of such advances in its books of account, therefore, the aforesaid sum became unexplained income of the assessee in the views of the AO and accordingly the he made addition of the same u/s 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and made detailed submissions that the impugned addition is beyond the provisions of law as well as contrary to facts, but the Ld CIT (A) was not satisfied with the arguments of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the AO. 16. Before us, the Ld. Counsel made submissions and arguments to assail the addition made by the AO. Ld....