Law & Society

Dy. CIT vs Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam

View Case

Assessee is a subsidiary company of U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. and is engaged in the business of power distribution. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring loss. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3). It was thus submitted that electricity duty is collected by the assessee on behalf of Government of U. P. and the provisions of section 43B are not applicable to the assessee. AO was of the view that provisions of 43B are applicable to the amounts which have remained unpaid till the date of filing the return of income and accordingly disallowed the balance amount. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. It is a settled legal position that the rule of consistency is required to be followed by the Income-tax authorities and that in the absence of any difference in the facts and circumstances of the case for the assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer is not justified in disallowing the claim. Further, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi ITAT passed in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 has been stayed/ set aside or overruled by higher judicial forum. In such a situation, following the rule of consistency and following the order
of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2015-16 and for similar reasons hold that AO was not justified in disallowing the expenditure by invoking the provisions u/s 43B.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Share your thoughts using the comment section below

%d bloggers like this: