TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r for the sake of convenience, by first dealing with Revenue's Appeal. 2. The grounds raised in the Revenue's Appeal read as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 195,95,85,359/- made on account of provisions for unrealized surcharge levied on account of delay in payment of bills. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that being a company, the assesse is obliged to follow mercantile system of accounting as per Companies Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee has levied basic charge on account of use of electricit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mself in order dated 4.2.2013. The subject proceedings being without sanction in law, merit to be quashed. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return declaring loss of Rs. 163,32,42,391/- on 31.10.2015 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) on 11.10.2006. The assessee filed revised return declaring loss of Rs. 222,90,10,540/- on 18.10.2006 which was also processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28.12.2006. Thereafter the assessee still filed another revised return on 22.3.2007 declaring loss to the tune of Rs. 124,33,57,290/- which was also processed on 30.3.2007. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 19.11.2007 at a returned loss of Rs. 124,33,57,290....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in response to the same, the AR of the assessee attended the proceedings. In this case the assessee company is a government undertaking incorporated on 15.3.1999 and is carrying out business of distribution of electricity in ten districts of Southern Haryana. The AR of the assessee filed the requisite information / documents alongwith books of account. Thereafter, the AO observed that as per notes to Schedule 10 of the Audit Report, a sum of Rs. 1,95,95,85,359/- being surcharge assessed but not realized has been withdrawn from (income from surcharge) and adjusted against (surcharge levied but not realized). As the assessee company is following mercantile system of accounting the assessee was asked to explain why this provision made should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08-09 respectively. In order to support this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book attaching therewith the copies of the aforesaid decisions of the ITAT. 6. Ld. DR could not controvert the fact that issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by assessee's own case in respect of assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 by the Tribunal's decision, but she relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and pleaded for reversal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by filing the written submissions cited various case laws therein. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order as well the Tribunal's orders and the submiss....