2021 (3) TMI 478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l the grounds of appeal are against the order passed by the Pr.CIT, Guntur u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). In this case, the assessee filed the return of income admitting total income of Rs. 4,10,18,260/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for a sum of Rs. 31,56,722/- and the assessment was completed on total income of Rs. 4,16,08,350/-. In the case of assessment u/s 115JB as per MAT provisions, the book profit declared by the assessee at Rs. 11,84,92,012/- was accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the assessment was completed by an order dated 21.03.2016. The Pr.CIT has taken up the case for revision and found that during the Financial Year 2012-13, relevant to the A.Y.2013-14, the assessee had reduced ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents reached between the assessee and APSPDCL. The assessee further argued that since, the expenditure was crystalised in the year under consideration, though it is payable in the subsequent date, the expenditure cannot be postponed as per the system of accounting followed by the assessee. Therefore, argued that the expenditure is allowable as per the normal provisions and also does not fall under the MAT provisions, hence, requested to drop the 263 proceedings. However, the Ld.Pr.CIT was not satisfied with the reply and found that as per the information available on record, the fuel surcharge adjustments were demanded by APSPDCL basing on Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) order dated 20.09.2012, which are paid from t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....standing liabilities account, thus, there is no double deduction also. The assessee has taken our attention to page No.24 of the paper book, to the letter addressed to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in 263 proceedings, wherein, he submitted that the Profit and Loss account and Balance Sheet was compiled as required under Schedule-III of the Companies Act. Therefore, submitted that there is no error in the order of the AO, hence requested to quash the 263 order and restore the assessment order. The assessee relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs.Addl.Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... placed before the AO at the time of assessment, it cannot be construed that the AO had verified the entire issues unless specific information is called by the AO. Therefore, there was an error which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue with regard to non-verification of financial surcharge adjustment in the assessment made u/s 143(3). Hon'ble Bombay High court in Sesa Starlite Ltd.v .Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa, [2021] 123 taxmann.com 217 (Bombay ) flowing the order of Apex court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 ITR 83 (SC) held that Where Assessing Officer sought information from assessee regarding its claim of deduction under section 10B, however, without considering such information produce....