TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Rs. 1,37,86,20,277/- as facilitation charges from HPL. At that time, the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 result, an amount of Rs. 11,40,60,203 still remains unexplained. The Id. AO is directed to delete the addition made by him on this account and add back a sum of Rs. 11,40,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 date of the assessment year. 4.9. The ld. D/R on the other hand submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has recorded a detailed finding on this issue. He referred to the chart at page-22 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds 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 from business' or under the head 'income from other sources'. In the result, this finding of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld and ground no. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 5.4. Ground no. 2 is on the issue of determination of comp....