TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 22.09.2009. This appeal is filed by HPL. 3. We shall now take up the assessee's appeal. ITA No. 2281/Kol/2019 The grounds of the appeal read as follows: "1(a) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding addition of Rs. 11,40,60,203/- out of Rs. 34,55,60,203/ as additional income of the Appellant under the normal provision of the income Tax Act and also under section 115JB. 1(b) The Ld.CIT(A) further erred in failing to appreciate that even otherwise no addition could have been made u/s 115JB when the accounts have been audited and approved in the AGM. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in disallowing expense of Rs. 23,57,810/- under the normal provision of the Income Tax Act in respect of payment to Nuovo Pignone on purported ground of prior period expenses." 4. After hearing rival contentions, perusing the papers on record and the orders of the authorities below as well as the case law cited we hold as follows. 4.1. On ground nos. 1 & 2 the ld. CIT(A) from para-5.2 to 5.5 held as follows: "5.2. I have carefully considered the issue at hand. The appellant has declared to have earned an amount of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing has been mentioned: Reconciliation of Conversion (Facilitation) charges as shown in Audited Accounts of HPCL vs. as shown by HPL. As per Audited Accounts of HPLCL : Rs. 1,37,86,20,277 Add: Credit note towards Corporate Tax refund considered byHPL in AY 2008-09 : Rs. 38,67,00,000 Less: Fuel savings claim and other debit notes considered by HPLIn AY 2008-09 : Rs. 4,11,39,797 As per TDS certificate received from HPL : Rs. 1,72,41,80,480 5.5. On a comparison of the two figures, i.e. the one which is a note on disputed amount and the reconciliation statement, I find there are two differences: (a) The interest receivable by the appellant on late payment at Rs. 19.71 crores has not been incorporated in the reconciliation statement, (b) The value of fuel savings and other debits at Rs. 4.11 crore was not a part of the dispute. Therefore, I reject the reconciliation statement and adopt the figure of Rs. 23.15 crore payable by the appellant to HPL as on 31.03.2007. Thus, in my view, the disputed amounts, which allegedly caused the difference of Rs. 34,55,60,203 can explain an amount of Rs. 23,15,00,000 only. As a res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) applied the propositions of law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and held that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act was bad in law, as no tax need to be deducted at source for reimbursement of expenditure. 4.7. While upholding so, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the invoices dated 06.03.2006 and 16.03.2006 amounting to Rs. 23,57,810/- pertained to March 2006 and hence are not expenditure of current year and cannot be allowed for the AY 2007-08. Aggrieved by this order, both the Revenue as well as the assessee are in appeal before us. 4.8. The submission of the assessee is that the liability of the assessee on these reimbursement of expenditure, has crystallized during the AY 2007-08 and hence, is allowable during the year. It was argued that the assessee submitted the invoices pertaining to the month of March 2006, during the month of April 2006 and it was only after receipt and subsequent scrutiny of these invoices, the assessee acknowledged its allowability for reimbursement. Thus he submits that these are not prior period expenditure. Moreover, he submits that the ld. CIT(A) could not have made this disallowance as eleven years have elapsed from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as in facts allowing an amount of Rs. 1,54,61,748/- by wrongly considering that the income did not arise due to trading of power. (e) That the appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal." 5.2. On ground no. 1, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of his predecessor for the AY 2006-07 on identical facts and held that the income in question is assessable under the head 'income from business' and not under the head 'income from other sources'. On a query from the Bench the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, this decision of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue for the AY 2006-07 was accepted by the Revenue and no further appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The ld. D/R could not controvert these submissions of the assessee. 5.3. As the ld. CIT(A) has followed the propositions of law and decision of the ITAT on identical facts in the assessee's own case for the AY 2006-07 and as that order had become final, we do not see any reason to interfere in this decision of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue as to whether, the income in question is taxable under the head 'income ....