DCIT, New Delhi V. Shalimar Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1077/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5898 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY BHAGWANI
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Question of law
• Section: 153A; 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 ( A.Y 2010-11) DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32 NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS SHALIMAR TOWN PLANERS PVT. LTD. M-11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI AABCS5851R (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. AJAY BHAGWANI, CA ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 21/11/2014 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO COMPUTE THE INTER EST ON POST DATED CHEQUES FROM THE DATE AFTER THE SIX MONTHS OF ISSUE OF SUCH POST DATED CHEQUES I.E. FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE-DEE D. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) DATE OF HEARING 28.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.05.2018 2 ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ADDITIONAL PAYMENT MADE T O THE OWNERS OF THE LAND IS ALLOWABLE AS IN EXPENSES U/S 37 OF THE ACT. 3. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRENOUS AND IS NOT T ENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 3. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 WAS FILED ON 18/09/2010 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS.9,109/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) O N 01/11/2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY & NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, DATED 19/08/2011 WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE BY SPEED POST. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE FROM TIME TO TIME, THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ATTENDED THE OFFICE & SUBMITTED THE NECESSARY DETAI LS & CLARIFICATIONS AS PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED TH AT IN BPTP AND SOME OF ITS GROUP COMPANIES FIRST SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WA S CARRIED OUT ON 15/11/2007. DURING THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS U/S 153A OF THE ACT, IT WAS VERY WELL PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS USED TO PAY PART PAYMENTS OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE LAND PURCH ASED AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE-DEED AND THE PAYMENTS OF BALA NCE SALE CONSIDERATION WERE INVARIABLY MADE THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES (PD CS) AND FOR THE INTERVENING PERIOD )I.E. PERIOD BETWEEN THE DATE OF SALE DEED AND THE DATE OF ENCASHMENT OF PDCS), INTEREST WAS PAID IN CASH TO T HE VENDORS OF THE LAND BY THE VENDEE COMPANY ON MONTHLY BASIS @ 1.25% P.M. ON THE AMOUNT OF PDCS AND THIS CASH PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE VENDEE COM PANY, WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR BY IT, IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION O N THE GROUND HAS BEEN MADE IN THE SEVERAL GROUP COMPANIES OF THE BPTP GROUP DU RING THE COURSE OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)/148/153A IN CONSE QUENCE TO SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON 15/11/2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS.20,66,181/- HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE VENDORS AS INTEREST ON PDCS ISSUED TO THEM. SINCE THIS INTERE ST WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OUTSIDE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN CASH AND H AS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED BY IT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE 3 ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 ASSESSEE BEING PAID OUT OF ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT SUM OF RS.52, 51,250/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT MADE TO THE FARMERS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOTHING BUT A MADE UP AFFAIR AND THE PAYMENTS MA DE ARE NOT GENUINE AND HENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE. THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 2,51,250/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON A/C OF ADDITIONAL PAY MENTS. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AR E JUST AND AS PER THE RECORDS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 1 IS COVERE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES IN VARIOUS DECI SIONS MORE SPECIFICALLY IN CASE OF SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT BEING ITA NO. 2156/DEL/2015 ORDER DATED 14/5/2018. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2, TH E LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE TRIBUNAL DECIS ION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION IN CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS. V ASUNDARA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 211/ 2018 ORDER DATED 14/5/2018 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE BROAD INTERPRETATION TO THE EXPLANATI ON OF 37(1) OF THE ACT GIVEN BY THE REVENUE IS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE NOT WELL FOUNDED AND THUS, CONFIRM THE ITAT DECISION IN THE SAID CASE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. (SUP RA) HELD AS UNDER: 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES, IT IS NOTICED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 4 ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 1367/DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHERE IN THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 IN ITA NOS. 1674 & 1765/DEL/ 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF M/S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELO PERS PVT. LTD. HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE SAID ORDER DATED 14.09.2015 IN PARA 11 & 12 READ AS UNDER:- 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDIC ATED BY THE ITAT DELHI BNECH C, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S IAG PROM OTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014, T HE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE GIVEN IN PARA 5 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 5 WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET, THE GROUN D RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS MISCONCEIVED BECAUSE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,06,625/- BUT HAS ONLY DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTEREST. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). AFTER EXAMINING THE LOOSE PA PERS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. IT WAS NOTICED T HAT INTEREST IS PAID ON THE PDCS ONLY DURING THE PERIOD OF EXTENSION OF PDCS AN D, THEREFORE, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTED THE INTEREST ON PDCS AT THE TIME OF EXTENSION OF THE PDCS. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT THE EXTENSION OF PDCS IN EACH CASE, THEN T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED INTEREST ON PDCS AFTER SIX M ONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE PDCS. THEREFORE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,06,625/- MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON PDCS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTEREST ON PDCS AND THERE WAS A SOUND LOGIC FOR SUCH DIRECTION. HIS DIRECTION IS BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNE D CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL. 5 ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 12. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE OF M/S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO OR DER DATED 31.10.2014, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT, ON THIS ISSUE. 11. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 14.09.2015, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IS ALSO DELETED. THE ISSUE IN PRESENT CASE ALSO IS IDENTICAL AND GRO UND NO. 1 IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL. IT WAS VERY WELL PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS USED TO PAY PART PAYMENTS OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN R ESPECT OF THE LAND PURCHASED AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE-DEED AND THE P AYMENTS OF BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION WERE INVARIABLY MADE THROUGH POST DAT ED CHEQUES (PDCS) AND FOR THE INTERVENING PERIOD )I.E. PERIOD BETWEEN THE DAT E OF SALE DEED AND THE DATE OF ENCASHMENT OF PDCS), INTEREST WAS PAID IN CASH TO THE VENDORS OF THE LAN D BY THE VENDEE COMPANY ON MONTHLY BASIS @ 1.25% P.M. ON THE AMOUNT OF PDCS AND THIS CASH PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE VENDEE COM PANY, WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR BY IT, IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION O N THE GROUND HAS BEEN MADE IN THE SEVERAL GROUP COMPANIES OF THE BPTP GROUP DURIN G THE COURSE OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)/148/153A IN CONSE QUENCE TO SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON 15/11/2007. THUS, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF VASUNDARA PR OMOTERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE BROAD INTERP RETATION OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT GIVEN BY THE REVENUE IS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE NOT WELL FOUNDED. THE OTHER SUBMISSION IS THAT THE SUCH AMOUNT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS FALLING WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF THE SAID PROVISION, IN OUR OPINION, IS AN INCORRECT 6 ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 PREMISE. IT IS NOT EVERY ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LAW, BUT SUCH VIOLATION AS RESULTS IN A PENAL CONSEQUENCE, DETERMINED BY THAT LAW, WHICH IS ATTRACTED BY SECTION 37(1). THE OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD CONFER JURISDICTION ON M ATTERS BEYOND THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT HAVE SUCH POWERS. RE VENUE AUTHORITY ARGUED THAT THIS IS TO DECIDE WHAT CONSTITUTES INFRACTION OF OT HER PROVISIONS OF LAW. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES, THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS FROM THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN CASE OF ACIT VS. VASUNDRA PROMOTERS (P) LTD. (ITA NO. 15 27 & 1758/DEL/2013 ORDER DATED 13.04.2017. THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS WELL AS THE MATERIA L REFERRED TO BEFORE US. THE FIRST AND FOREMOST THING WHICH IS QUITE APPARENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY SUCH E XPENSES FOR SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,05,86,958/-, NOR IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN THE C OMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHASES THE LAND FROM THE FARMER S AND LAND OWNERS AND TRANSFERS THE SAME TO CWPPL AND FOR SUCH OPERATIONS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONLY ENTITLED FOR REMUNERATION OF RS.35,000/- PER ACRE O VER AND ABOVE THE LAND COST. THE ENTIRE PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SALE IS NOT ROUT ED THROUGH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ALBEIT DIRECTLY DEBITED/CREDITED TO THE CWPPL ACCOU NT. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF CWPPL AND COPY OF PROFIT A ND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED BEFORE US. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT REGISTRATION IS DONE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND ALSO LIES WITH THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN THE ORDER HE HI MSELF HAS NOTED FROM THE AGREEMENT THAT, IN LIEU OF TRANSFERRING OF DEVELO PMENT RIGHT TO CWPPL, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ONLY GETS COMMISSION OR CHARGES OF RS. 35,0 00/- PER ACRE AND THE ENTIRE COST OF LAND IS REIMBURSED BY THE CWPPL. ONCE NO SU CH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED AT ALL OR DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT, OSTENSIBLY THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEAL T EXACTLY WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON 7 ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 RECORD. THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE MATERIAL ISSUE IS THA T THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS NEVER CLAIMED AS ASSESSEES BUSINESS EXPENDITURE TH E OCCASION TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME DOES NOT ARISE. ON THIS FA CT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS ADMITTEDLY THE EXPENDITURE WAS NEVER CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS NOT BEEN ROUTED THROUGH ITS P& L A/C, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OCCASION TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF THE SAME BY WAY OF A DISALLOWANCE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DOES N OT ARISE. THE REASONING AND FINDING GIVEN WHILE CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS QUA G ROUND NO. 4 WOULD FULLY APPLY HERE ALSO. THE DIFFERENCE THAT HERE THE ENTIR E AMOUNT IS ADDED U/S 37 AS OPPOSED TO PART OF THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED U/S 4 0A(3) IS NOT SO MATERIAL AS THE FINDING IS ARRIVED AT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE MATERIAL FACT THAT HERETO ALSO NO SUCH CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN MADE. THE FACT T HAT THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS WERE WARRANTED IN ORDER TO AVOID POTENTIAL DISPUTES AMONGST THE CLAIMANTS OF THE LAND HOLDING WHICH HAVE BEEN PASSED THROUGH TO DIE LAND HOLDERS FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION WHEREIN THERE MAY BE INFOR MAL ARRANGEMENTS OF OWNERSHIP AND OR THE PAYMENTS WERE FOR COMMERCIAL E XPEDIENCY OF FACILITATE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND REGISTRATION OF THE LAND HO LDING; WHERE BY THE TIME REGISTRY WAS MADE THE LANDHOLDERS FELT A HIGHER PAY MENT WAS NECESSITATED DUE TO INCREASE IN VALUE ARE ISSUES WHICH ARE NOT REQUI RED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. GROUND NO. 3 ON THE FACTS AVAI LABLE ON RECORD CONSIDERING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT REFERRED TO IN DETAIL WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO. 4 HAS TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE AFORESAID DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN OTH ER CASES OF THE GROUP COMPANIES ALSO. THUS, ON THE AFORESAID REASONING AND BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WE ALSO HOLD THAT, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE OF E XPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CATEGORIC AL FINDING THAT THE PAYMENT FOR ACQUIRING LAND CANNOT BE SAID DISBURSEMENT OF E XPENSE OR NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENSE. IN CASE OF OWNER I.E. ASSESSEE EFFECTIVELY THE OWNER OF THE LAND IS PURCHASING THE SAME AND SELLING ALL THE RIGHTS IN S AID LAND AT A COST OF LAND 8 ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 PLUS RS. 35,000 PER ACRE. THEREFORE, THE COST OF LA ND PLUS RS. 35,000 PER ACRE IS THE SALE COST WHICH EFFECTIVELY CLAIMED BUT DUE TO ACCOUNTING ENTRIES, SUCH TRANSACTION GETS SQUARED UP TO THE EXTENT OF COST O F LAND, AS SUCH OWNER INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTLY CREDITING RS. 35 ,000 PER ACRE IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT. THUS, THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE VASUNDRA PROMOTERS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REV ENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MAY, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. SAINI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 30/05/2018 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 9 ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 28/05/2018 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28/05/2018 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2018 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 30.05.2018 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 3 0 .05.2018 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.