2025 (7) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances made on account of Provision for Post Closure expenses and Provision for Pit Covering expenses which were merely provisions and the same were neither accrued nor paid during the year?" ii. "Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in basing its decision on the order of co-ordinate benches in the case of the assessee for earlier years, on the issue of Provision for Post Closure and Pit Covering expenses, whereas the Revenue has not accepted the said decisions of co-ordinate benches in any of the years and has filed further appeal?" iii. "Your appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the Ground....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar 2017-18, 2018-19 allowed claim of assessee, following the decision of this Tribunal for assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05. Relevant extracts of the order of this Tribunal for respective assessment years are reproduced in the impugned order. The Ld.CIT(A) thus allow the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted paper book containing four orders passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for preceding assessment years, the details which are as under: "1. Order dated 28 November 2016 passed by Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal, in case of BEIL Infrastructure Ltd. for AY 2002-03 to AY 2006-07 (ITA No. 733, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s is a contingent liability. The ld CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Tribunal. We notice that the coordinate bench has considered an identical issue in AY 2012-13 in the assessee's own case and has decided this issue in favour of the assessee with the following observations:- "9. In ground no. 5 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of provision for post closure care expenditure under normal provision and u/s 115JB of the Act. We find that disallowance in respect of identical provisions was made in AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. In AY 2007-08, the Tribunal in appeal of the assessee ITA NO.2290/Ahd/2010 (supra) deleted the disallowance placing reliance on earlier order of Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... noticed that the assessee has incurred actual expenditure for pit covering at Rs. 66,92,900/- as against the provision of Rs. 84,72,597/- The assessee was asked to explain why the expenses of Rs. 17,79,697/- should not be disallowed. The assessee explained that the liability to incur expenditure on pit covering arises as soon as the pits were dug and the pits are required to be covered after each pit is completely filled as per guidelines issued by GPCB. The A.O. denied the contention of the assessed on the ground that the pit is closed immediately and, therefore, the difference between the provision and the amount actually spent could not be explained properly. The A.O. further added the excess provision to the book profit treating the s....