TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 5743/DEL/2014, for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in dismissing the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) whereby he has deleted the addition of Rs. 1,95,95,85,359/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of noninclusion of "surcharge levied on electricity bills, yet not realized during the year" in its total income even though the Respondent Assessee has regularly been following the mercantile system of accounting? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 30.3.2007. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 19.11.2007 framed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act at a returned loss of Rs. 124,33,57,290/- and allowed to carry forward the unabsorbed business loss and depreciation. Subsequently, the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated and a notice dated 9.3.2012 under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 4.2.2013 (Annexure A-1) passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act made the addition of Rs. 195,95,85,839/- on account of 'surcharge levied but not realized' as the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. It was noticed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book with his assistance. 4. The question that arises in this appeal is 'whether surcharge for delayed payment' contemplated in the bills raised by the assessee and its accounts, would invite payment of tax dehors recovery/payment/receipt of surcharge? 5. The Assessing Officer while making the addition of Rs. 195,95,85,839/- on account of 'surcharge levied but not realized' had observed that as soon as the surcharge was levied on delayed payment, the assessee acquires a right to receive money from the customers even though the amount may not have been received and that if the assessee acquires a right to receive the said amount, the income can be said to accr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue as well as cross-objections filed by the assessee. The relevant findings recorded thereof read thus:- "7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order as well as the Tribunal's orders and the submission filed by the Ld. DR and the case laws cited therein. We find considerable cogency in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the Tribunal in assessee's own case has decided the similar and identical issue in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue vide orders dated 30.11.2011, 27.6.2012 and 10.2.2012 for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively in assessee's own case. We further fi....