Itta/327/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sri Indira Power Energies Limited

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUI.T.T.A.No.327 of 2012 Date: 02-08-2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-III,I.T. Towers, A.C. Guards,Hyderabad. … Appellant And Sri Indira Power Energies Limited,G-1, Vijaya Residency, Road No.14,Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. … Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A.No.327 of 2012 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, dated 10-01-2012 inI.T.A.No.1148/Hyd/2011 in relation to the assessment year 2005-06and is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questionsof law: i)In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding the deletion of an addition made by theAssessing Officer on the difference of the rate perunit of sale of power by the Respondent-assesseewas following Mercantile System of Accounting andin terms of Section 5(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, theinterest accrued or arise shall be brought to tax inthe subject assessment year? ii)In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holdingthat the subject income cannot be deemed toaccrue to the Respondent-assessee, merelybasing on the purchase invoices raised. 2. It appears from the narration of fact recorded by thelearned Tribunal that the alleged income has not crystallized, as thematter was sub-judice before the Court. Mere raising of bills doesnot partake the character of crystallization or accrual of income. According to us, until and unless the competent Court of lawdecides the bills raised, it cannot be said that the income has beencrystallized. Such proposition of law is well settled by the Supreme Court andvarious High Courts and the decisions thereof have been recordedand followed by the learned Tribunal. The issue is settled now. Therefore, we do not find any reason to admit the appeal to make anattempt to answer the settled issue. 3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no orderas to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ Date: 02-08-2013 YCR _________________ K.C.BHANU, J