Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 August, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/950/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 950 of 2010
 

 
=================================================
 

COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

HI
REL ELECTRONICS PVT LTD - Opponent(s)
 

================================================= 
Appearance
: 
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, 
None for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/08/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. Revenue
is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.4.2009
raising following question for our consideration:-

“Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the disallowance of
Rs.86,607/- made on prior period expenses?”

2. The
question pertains to the direction of the Tribunal to allow the prior
period expenses in the respective years in which said expenses were
actually incurred.

3. Before
the Tribunal the assesses had not been able to dislodge the order of
CIT(Appeals) holding that the expenditure in question was not made
during the year under consideration. However, as an alternative, the
assessee had contended that the expenses may be allowed to the year
to which it relates. In view of the fact that the Revenue had not
disputed the expenses, the Tribunal accepted the request of the
assessee and gave the directions noted above.

4. Counsel
for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal could not have given such
general directions and even if any direction, as envisaged under
Section 150 of the Income Tax Act was to be issued, the Tribunal had
to verify the facts and relate the expenditure to a specific
assessment year.

5. We
find that the amount involved is not very large. It is not in dispute
that the assessee had incurred the expenditure in question. In that
view of the matter, without going into the legality of the Tribunal’s
directions in this regard, we are not inclined to entertain such
question keeping the issue open.

6. This
being the sole question, Tax Appeal is dismissed.

(Akil
Kureshi, J.)

(Ms.

Sonia Gokani, J. )

sudhir

   

Top