IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1436/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ESCORTS LIMITED, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 8(2) CORPORATE TAXATION, ROOM NO. 194, 15/5, MATHURA ROAD, C.R. BUILDING, FARIDABAD 121003 I.P. ESTATE, (PAN: AAACE00748B) NEW DELHI 2 (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. R.M. MEHTA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. SANJAY GOEL, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-44, NEW DELHI R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 16,87,415/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PRI OR PERIOD EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE NATURE OF EXPENSES, METHOD OF 2 ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED AND EXPLANATION GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTORING BACK THE ISSU E OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 93,60,000/- TO THE FIL E OF THE AO WHEN COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM ALONGWITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE AVAIBALE BEFORE HIM AND T HE AO DID NOT REBUT THE CLAIM IN THE REMAND REPORT RECEIVED FROM HIM. 3. THE APPELLANT RESERVES TO ITSELF, THE RIGHT TO ADD , ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE AND / OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND(S) O F APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE GROUND NO. 2 AND ENDORSED THE SAME ON THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRES SED. 3.1 AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1 RELATING TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,87,415/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PRI OR PERIOD EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE NATURE OF EXPENSES, METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYE D AND EXPLANATION 3 GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM IS CONCERNED. LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NEC ESSARY EVIDENCES SUPPORTING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE, BUT THE SAME HAS N OT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER S TATED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS EXACTLY THE SIMILAR CLAIM HAS BEEN AL LOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 EXAC TLY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE I TAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 4235/DEL/2004 (AY 2005-06) VIDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2018 AND THIS ORDER OF THE ITAT HAS BEEN AFFI RMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT BY DISMISSING THE ITA NO. 961/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.09.2018 FILED BY THE REVENUE. IN T HIS BEHALF, HE FILED THE COPY OF THE ITAT ORDER DATED 9.3.2018 AS WELL AS HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 04.09.2018. HENCE, HE REQUES TED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF TH E AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF T HE ITAT AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WITH THE LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSE E TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) 4 CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,87,415/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. WE FURTHER FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NE CESSARY EVIDENCES SUPPORTING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE, BUT THE SAME HAS N OT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FURTHER F IND THAT IN EARLIER YEARS EXACTLY THE SIMILAR CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 EXACTLY SIM ILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 4235/DEL/2004 (AY 2005-06) VIDE OR DER DATED 09.03.2018 AND LATER THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N REVENUES ITA NO. 961/2018 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 04.09.2018 HAS DI SMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN LIMINE , WHICH WAS FILED AGAINST THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 09.3.2018, AS AFORESAID. KEEPING IN V IEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, IN V IEW OF ITAT ORDER DATED 09.3.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO. 4235/DEL/2004 (AY 2005-06) AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2018 OF THE HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN IN ITA NO. 961/2018. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO S UBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM 5 AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. WE HOLD AND DIRECT A CCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31/12/2018. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 31/12/2018 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES