Itxa/138/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Ms Parigha Premises P Ltd

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.138 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax.-Versus-Ms.Parigha Premises Pvt.Ltd.. ..Appellant ..Respondent ...........Mr.Vimal Gupta with Ms.Padma Divakar, for the Appellant............ CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- 03[rd] July, 2014 P.C.: 1This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal bench at Pune dated 21.06.2011. The Assessment Year in question is 2005-2006. 2The substantial question of law, according to Mr.Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue, arising from the order dated 21.06.2011 is that the Assessing Officer has correctly disallowed the administrative and other general expenses which do not form a part of work in progress. They could not have been included in the value of the work in progress. The Assessing Officer held that the Assessee ought to have claimed such expenses in the respective earlier years as loss from business and brought forward the same instead of showing it as a part of work in progress. 3With the assistance of Mr.Gupta we have perused the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which has been referred to in paragraph 6 of the Tribunal’s order. We have also perused the reasoning of the Tribunal in dealing with the contention which is similar to one raised by Mr.Gupta. 4In paragraph 8 of the order under challenge what the Tribunal essentially faults the Assessing Officer with is that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the part of expenses which were included in the opening work in progress and stated that such expenses should have been claimed as loss in the respective assessment years and thereafter, brought forward to the current year for set-off against the income. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal noted that even if such an exercise is permitted to be carried out that will have no impact on the ultimate tax liability as the impugned sum would be allowed as an extra-loss carried forward to the current year for set-off. In these circumstances the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The findings of the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of record. The Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)