Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Assessing Officer omitted to consider the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) in respect of interest paid on borrowed funds in capital work in progress.
2. Disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D in respect of dividend income from investment in equity shares was omitted to be considered.
3. Assessing Officer's omission to examine the issue on the taxability of income on account of lapsed liability of freezer deposits.

Accordingly, the CIT issued notice u/s. 263 proposing for revision of assessment u/s. 263 of the Act . The CIT was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee. He observed as follows:

3) Income on account of lapsed liability of freezer deposit It is seen from records that income on account of issue of taxability of income on account of lapsed liability of freezer deposit of Rs. 29,72,034 /-

was not examined with reference to statutory provisions of actual cost as per explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of IT Act. In reply to show cause notice the assessee contends that 1TAT, Cochin Bench, Cochin in the assessee's own appeal had deleted the addition towards the lapsed I.T.A. No.155 /Coch/2017 liability on freezer deposits. The applicability of Section 43(1) - Explanation 10 had not been examined by AO. Therefore, this issue is remitted to AO for considering the factual position and passing necessary orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the assessee.

CIT vs Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) (Delhi) I.T.A. No.155 /Coch/2017 14.1 Further, it was submitted that explanation 10 to section 43(1) was attracted only when a portion of the cost of an asset acquired by the assesse had been met directly or indirectly by the Central Government or State Government or any authority established under any law in the form of a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. According to the Ld. AR, the freezer deposit collected by the assessee from the dealers represent the liability of the assessee and the same cannot be considered as subsidy for the acquisition of freezers. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Acumen Capital Market Ltd vs DCIT ( 163 ITD 633) where it was held as follows:
"6. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the record. We have also gone through the copy of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of High Range Foods (P) Ltd, referred supra. In respect of the first issue, i.e., Whether the deposits received from the dealers can be considered as income of the assessee, the Tribunal has observed as under.
"The assessee received Deposit for the supply of freezer from the concerned vendors. The freezers are required to safe keep the edible ice-creams. They are required for the purpose of business. The small vendors may not be inclined to purchase the freezers as they are not affordable to them considering their status. This made the assessee company to supply freezer on the receipt of fixed deposit and the compensation of the spread-over period. They are attached with a liability. The accrual comes only on termination of agreement. The business necessity requires cordial relationship with vendors. The assessee cannot treat these two amounts as receipts in the nature of income unless the so-called agreement terminated. In other words it is not a debt owned by the assessee. Hence, under the above facts and circumstances of the case, this I.T.A. No.155 /Coch/2017 issue to be decided in favour of the assessee by setting aside the orders of the authorities.