TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2002-03. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2015 to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessee is entitled for prior period expenses aggregating to Rs. 2,56,28,132/- even though the same was not claimed in original return and assessing authority has not made any addition in this regard or otherwise whether the Tribunal is right in law in not remitting back the matter back to assessing auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal, by an order dated 17.05.2013 partly allowed the appeals preferred by the revenue as well as the assessee. The claim of the assessee in respect of prior period expenses as well as deduction of claim towards expenditure / liability to the extent of Rs. 1,35,73,930/- in respect of excise transport fees was allowed by the Tribunal. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the claim with regard to prior period expenses to the tune Rs. 2,56,28,132/- was not made in the return of income but was made before the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pport of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'GOETZE INDIA LTD. Vs. CIT' 284 ITR 323. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee while inviting our attention to substantial questions of law framed by this Court submitted that the revenue has not challenged the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the ground that the same are perverse. It has only been urged that the Tribunal committed an error of law in not remitting the matter to the assessing authority. Learned counsel for the assessee has taken us through paragraphs 5.7.3 to 5.7.7 of the order passed by the Tribunal with regard to the first substantial question of law and has submitted that the Tribunal on meticul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erused the record. It is well settled in law that Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and this Court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act can interfere with the findings of fact only when the same are shown to be perverse. (See: 'SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES VS. CIT', 300 ITR 205 SCC @ 211 and 'MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT', 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648]. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income Tax (Appeals) claiming deduction of Rs. 2,56,28,132/- towards prior period expenses as the same was not claimed originally on an erroneous impression that the same was not allowable under the Act. The Tribunal has further noted that a detailed submission was made before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the form of a paper book. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that the expenses did not pertain to the Assessment Year 2002 03. The Tribunal thereupon has recorded the finding that the expenses were incurred during the relevant Assessment Year and therefore, the claim was allowable, by placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in 'KEDARNATH....