Addition of Prior period expense

 The genuineness of the expenses has not been doubted by the lower authorities.

Since in the instant case the bills for expenses under consideration have been processed by various divisions of the assessee and finally approved in the year under consideration, and thus, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (supra), the liability for the expenses was finally settled and crystallised in the year under consideration.

  Claim of expenses cannot be denied

 For accounting purposes these are generally known as prior period items and required to be shown separately.

 Normally, where a mercantile system of accounting is followed, expenses relating to the relevant year are accounted for in that year.

 However, prior period expenses had to be allowed in subsequent years if those expenses are crystallized in that year.

 CIT(A), which have been reiterated before us, the assessee has contended that bill in respect of professional charges of ₹ 42,000/-was received on 30/04/2008 – Counsel before us referred to page No. 7 of the paper-book, which is a copy of the said Bill and submitted that bill was processed finally on 19/01/2009 by the finance division, before travelling through various Department of the assessee company.

 Regarding other bills of ₹ 43,491/-; ₹ 50,000; and ₹ 23,021 also similar submissions have been made by the learned Counsel of the assessee.

 We find that Tribunal Jaipur bench in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [2014 (11) TMI 264 – ITAT JAIPUR] held that expenses of the previous year are allowable in the respective year to which they pertain but information as regard to such expenses with evidence was received by the assessee from the various branches after closing of books of accounts, and hence same are allowable during the year under consideration.

 Before us also, the genuineness of the expenses has not been doubted by the lower authorities.

 Since in the instant case the bills for expenses under consideration have been processed by various divisions of the assessee and finally approved in the year under consideration, and thus, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (supra), the liability for the expenses was finally settled and crystallised in the year under consideration.

 Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer for prior period expenses. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.