Audience Measurement and Analytics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1163/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5918 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KRUPESH PATEL
• Section: 37(1); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. 601, SHAHPATH-II, OPP. RAJPATH CLUB SG HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD / VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAECA 3984 G ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KRUPESH PATEL, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 03/01/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/01/2019 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)1, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-V I/DCIT, CIR- 1/141/2013-14 NOW 242/CIT(A)-1 DATED 20/02/2015 ARI SING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961(HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 21/03/2013 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL:- ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 2 - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING DISALL OWANCE OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSE OF RS.675,488/-. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING DISALL OWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE OF RS.9,69,213/-. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES OF RS. 6,75,488/- ONLY. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COLLECTING, COMPILING AND ANALYZING VIEWERSHIP DATE (TRP DIVISION) AND SOFTWA RE AND I.T. DEVELOPMENT (SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION). 4.1. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION H AS CLAIMED ELECTRICITY THE EXPENSE AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,75,488/- ONLY. BUT THE ELECTRICITY BILLS WERE NOT BEARING THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD OUTSOURCED LOG JOB WORK TO M/S KINJAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES (FOR SHORT KCT). M /S KCT SUBMITTED THESE ELECTRICITY BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, THERE WAS AN ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND KCT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN A CTUAL EXPENSES INCLUDING ELECTRICITY EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT BESID ES THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES. ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 3 - 4.2. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD REIMBURSED THE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES TO KCT ON ACTUAL BASIS. M/S K CT SUBMITTED THESE BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE WORK CARRIE D OUT ON ITS BEHALF. 4.3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO PR OFIT ELEMENT IN THE ELECTRICITY BILLS SUBMITTED BY KCT WHICH WERE REIMB URSED ON AN ACTUAL BASIS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ATTRACTIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 4.4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISAGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THESE REIMBU RSEMENTS OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES WERE PAID IN PURSUANCE TO THE CONTRACT. T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR THE DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO TH E LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TDS ON REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPE NSES. 5.1. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT-A FOUND THAT THE BILLS F ILED BY KCT ARE OF THE ADDRESS BEARING 318/2/9, PAHEL GAUM, B/H PREMC HAND NAGAR, SATYAGRAH CHHAVNI ROAD, AHMEDABAD WHEREAS THE ADDR ESS OF KCT IS 19, SHITAL PLAZA, NEAR LAD SOCIETY, SATELLITE, AHM EDABAD. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THESE ELECTRICITY BIL LS ARE OF PERSONAL ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 4 - NATURE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLU SIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED TH E DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES WERE NOT IN CURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS. . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD.AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ELECT RICITY BILLS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THESE EX PENSES WERE INCURRED IN PURSUANCE TO THE CONTRACT WITH THE KCT. AS SUCH , M/S. KCT WAS ALSO OPERATING FROM THE PREMISES BEARING NO. 318/2/9, PA TEL GAUM, B/H. PREMCHAND NAGAR, SATYAGRAH CHHAVNI ROAD, AHMEDABAD, WHEREAS ITS REGISTERED OFFICE WAS LOCATED AT A DIFFERENT ADDRES S. HOWEVER, IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE KCT, THE ADDRESS OF KCT WAS MENTIONED 19, SHITAL PLAZA, NEAR LAD SOCIETY, SATE LLITE, AHMEDABAD. BUT SIMPLY NON-MENTIONING OF THE ADDRESS IN THE AGR EEMENT CANNOT BE THE REASON FOR MAKING SUCH DISALLOWANCE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ELECTRICITY BILLS BEARING THE ADDRESS AS STATED ABOVE WAS OF THE RESI DENTIAL PREMISES. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT M/S.KCT WAS O PERATING FROM SUCH PREMISES. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 5 - 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES APPEARING FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT M ATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED ELECTRICITY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,75,488/- WHICH WAS TREATED FOR N ON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. 9.1. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, WE NOTE THAT TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FILED THE BILLS RAISED BY M/S. K CT FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES. HAD THERE B EEN ANY DOUBT, THEN THE LD. CIT(A) WAS AT LIBERTY TO HAVE TAKEN THE CON FIRMATION FROM THE PARTY. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EXERCISED HIS POW ER U/S 133(6)/131 OF THE ACT. 9.2. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH KCT DATED 01/04/2009 WHERE THE ADDRE SS OF 19, SHITAL PLAZA, NEAR LAD SOCIETY, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD WAS M ENTIONED. THIS AGREEMENT WAS MADE TO OUTSOURCE THE WORK BY THE ASS ESSEE TO KCT. BUT NO DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN V ERY CLEAR-CUT FINDING IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT TO KCT FOR THE WORK EXECUTED BY IT. ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 6 - 9.3. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS, WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON A DIFFERENT GROUND, I.E., THE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS AS MANDATE D U/S. 37(1) OF THE ACT. FROM THE ABOVE, WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) H AS TAKEN A DIFFERENT STAND BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ELECTRI CITY EXPENSES WHICH AMOUNTS TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT. BUT WE NOTE THAT NO NOTICE AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT. 9.4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED T O SUSTAIN THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THUS, WE REVERSE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR RS. 9,69,213/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. 10.1. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS SHOWN PRIOR PERIOD INCOME OF RS. 16,67,228/- WHICH WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 10,61,413/ ONLY. THUS, IN E FFECT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PRIOR PERIOD INCOME FOR RS. 6,05,815/- ONLY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 7 - ACT FOR ALLOWING THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, A CLARIFICATION WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FROM THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 05/02/2013. 10.2. THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO IT, VIDE LETTER DATED 19.2.2013 SUBMITTED THAT THESE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES/INCOME W ERE CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AGAINST THE PRIOR PERIOD INCOME. 10.3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IF THE PRI OR PERIOD EXPENSE IS TO BE DISALLOWED, THEN CORRESPONDING PRIOR PERIOD INCO ME SHOULD ALSO BE REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. 10.4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISAGREED W ITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE PRIOR PERIOD EXP ENSES WERE NOT CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THER EFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO T HE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT H AD THESE EXPENSES BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEN THESE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. AS THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE RATE OF TAX IN THE EARLIER AS WELL AS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELI ED ON SEVERAL JUDGMENTS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 8 - 11.1. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE PRI OR PERIOD EXPENSES WERE NOT CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED. SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PRIOR PERIOD INCOME RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION HAS TO BE TAXED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 11.2. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECO RD SUGGESTING THAT THE RATE OF TAX WAS THE SAME FOR THE YEARS TO WHICH THE EXPENSES PERTAIN VIZ-A-VIZ TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 12. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE PRIOR P ERIOD EXPENSES NEED TO BE ALLOWED AS THE PRIOR PERIOD INCOME HAS B EEN OFFERED TO TAX. 14. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE HAVE PE RUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED PRIOR PERIOD INCOME A S WELL AS CLAIMED PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. HOWEVER, PRIOR PERIOD INCOME HAS B EEN ADMITTED ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 9 - WITHOUT ADJUSTING WITH THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. I N THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT ONCE PRIOR PERIOD IN COME HAS BEEN CREDITED, THEN THE CORRESPONDING EXPENSES ARE ALSO BE ALLOWED AGAINST SUCH INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDAN CE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURAS HTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. CIT REPORTED IN 213 ITR 523 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: MERELY BECAUSE AN EXPENSE RELATES TO A TRANSACTION OF AN EARLIER YEAR IT DOES NOT BECOME A LIABILITY PAYABLE IN THE EARLI ER YEAR UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED AND CRYSTALL IZED IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION ON THE BASIS OF MAINTAINING ACCOUNTS ON TH E MERCANTILE BASIS. IN EACH CASE WHERE THE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED ON M ERCANTILE BASIS, IT HAS TO BE FOUND IN RESPECT OF ANY CLAIM WHETHER SUC H LIABILITY WAS CRYSTALLIZED AND QUANTIFIED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEA R AS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THAT PREVIOUS Y EAR. IF ANY LIABILITY, THOUGH RELATING TO THE EARLIER YEAR, DEPENDS UPON M AKING A DEMAND AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH LIABILITY H AS BEEN ACTUALLY CLAIMED AND PAID IN THE LATER PREVIOUS YEARS, IT CA NNOT BE DISALLOWED AS DEDUCTION MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT ACCOUNTS ARE MAI NTAINED ON MERCANTILE BASIS AND THAT IT RELATES TO A TRANSACTI ON OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE TRUE PROFIT AND GAIN OF A PREVIOUS YEAR ARE REQ UIRED TO BE COMPUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING TAX LIABILITY. THE B ASIS OF TAXING INCOME IS ACCRUAL OF INCOME AS WELL AS ACTUAL RECEIPT. IF FOR WANT OF NECESSARY MATERIAL CRYSTALLIZING THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT IN EX ISTENCE IN RESPECT OF WHICH SUCH INCOME OR EXPENSES RELATES, THE MERCANTI LE SYSTEM DOES NOT CALL FOR AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON E STIMATE BASIS. IT IS ACTUALLY KNOWN INCOME OR EXPENSES, RIGHT TO RECEIVE OR LIABILITY TO PAY WHICH HAS COME TO BE CRYSTALLIZED IS TO BE TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT UNDER MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AN ESTIMATED INCOME OR LIABILITY, WHICH IS YET TO BE CRYSTALLIZE D, CAN ONLY BE ADJUSTED AS CONTINGENCY ITEM BUT NOT AS AN ACCRUED INCOME OR LIABILITY OF THAT YEAR. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THA T THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE RELEVANT PREVI OUS YEAR ON THE GROUND THAT THE LIABILITY HAD ARISEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 10 - 15.1. WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE J UDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRI ES LIMITED REPORTED IN 358 ITR 295 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 32. THIRDLY, THE REAL QUESTION CONCERNING US IS THE YE AR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PAY TAX. THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE DID MAKE I MPORTS AND DID DERIVE BENEFITS UNDER THE ADVANCE LICENCE AND THE D UTY ENTITLEMENT PASS BOOK AND PAID TAX THEREON. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT AS IF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF ANY TAX. WE ARE TOLD THAT THE RATE OF TAX REMAINED THE SAME IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL AS IN T HE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE DISPUTE RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IS ENTIRELY ACADEMIC OR AT BEST MAY HAVE A MINOR TAX E FFECT. THERE WAS, THEREFORE, NO NEED FOR THE REVENUE TO CONTINUE WITH THIS LITIGATION WHEN IT WAS QUITE CLEAR THAT NOT ONLY WAS IT FRUITLESS ( ON MERITS) BUT ALSO THAT IT MAY NOT HAVE ADDED ANYTHING MUCH TO THE PUBLIC COFF ERS. 15.2. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE L D.AR THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE RATE OF TAX. ACCORDINGLY, THERE W AS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE IF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM T HE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NA GRI MILLS CO.LTD. REPORTED IN 33 ITR 681 (BOM) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE OFTEN WONDERED WHY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORIT IES, IN A MATTER SUCH AS THIS WHERE THE DEDUCTION IS OBVIOUSLY A PER MISSIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, RAISE DISPUTES AS TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE QUESTION AS TO THE YEAR IN WHICH A DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE MAY BE MATERIAL WHEN THE RAT E OF TAX CHARGEABLE ON THE ASSESSEE IN TWO DIFFERENT YEARS IS DIFFERENT ; BUT IN THE CASE OF INCOME OF A COMPANY, TAX IS ATTRACTED AT A UNIFORM RATE, AND WHETHER THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF BONUS WAS GRANTED IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1952- 53 OR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE A CCOUNTING YEAR 1952, THAT IS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1953-54, SHOUL D BE A MATTER OF NO ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 11 - CONSEQUENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT; AND ONE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT FRITTER AWAY ITS ENERGIES IN F IGHTING MATTERS OF THIS KIND. BUT, OBVIOUSLY, JUDGING FROM THE REFEREN CES THAT COME UP TO US EVERY NOW AND THEN, THE DEPARTMENT APPEARS TO DELIG HT IN RAISING POINTS OF THE CHARACTER WHICH DO NOT AFFECT THE TAXABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE TAX THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS LIKELY TO COLLECT FROM H IM WHETHER IN ONE YEAR OR THE OTHER. 15.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED TO THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AGAINST THE PRIOR PERIOD INCO ME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21/01/2019 SD/- SD/- ( JUSTICE P.P. BHATT ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21 /01/2019 &.., .(.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1163/AHD/2015 AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTICS PVT.LTD. VS. DC IT ASST. YEAR - 2010-11 - 12 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABAD 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) $%, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 9.1.2019(DICTATION PAD 27- P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10.1.20 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.25.1.2019 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 25.1.2019 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER