ACIT Central Circle 2(2), CHENNAI V. RPD Earth Movers P. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1647/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3681 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K M MOHANDASS
• Keywords: Business income; Period of limitation
• Section: 6; 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1644/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI. VS. M/S. VYASA PLOT & HOUSING P. LTD., NO. 1379, GOLDEN VILLA, 1 ST BLOCK, 6 TH STREET, 18 TH MAIN ROAD, VALLALAR KUDIYERUPPU, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 40. [PAN: AACCV6776H] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.1645/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI. VS. M/S. ACHARYA HOMES & ESTATE P. LTD., NO. 1379, GOLDEN VILLA, 1 ST BLOCK, 6 TH STREET, 18 TH MAIN ROAD, VALLALAR KUDIYERUPPU, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 40. [PAN: AAHCA8990M] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.1647/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI. VS. M/S. RPD EARTH MOVERS P. LTD., NO. 1379, GOLDEN VILLA, 1 ST BLOCK, 6 TH STREET, 18 TH MAIN ROAD, VALLALAR KUDIYERUPPU, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 40. [PAN: A ADCR6604B ] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 2 ./ I.T.A.NO.1648/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI. VS. M/S. SSD HOMES & ESTATES DEVELOPERS P. LTD., NO. 1379, GOLDEN VILLA, 1 ST BLOCK, 6 TH STREET, 18 TH MAIN ROAD, VALLALAR KUDIYERUPPU, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 40. [PAN: AALCS1774R] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.1649/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI. VS. M/S. GANAM HOMES & ESTATES P. LTD., NO. 1379, GOLDEN VILLA, 1 ST BLOCK, 6 TH STREET, 18 TH MAIN ROAD, VALLALAR KUDIYERUPPU, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 40. [PAN: AADCG5334P] ./ I.T.A.NO.1650/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI. VS. M/S. SANGUPATHI PROPERTIES P. LTD., NO. 1379, GOLDEN VILLA, 1 ST BLOCK, 6 TH STREET, 18 TH MAIN ROAD, VALLALAR KUDIYERUPPU, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 40. [PAN: AALCS4094A] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.1651/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI. VS. M/S. ANU PLOT & HOUSING P. LTD., NO. 1379, GOLDEN VILLA, 1 ST BLOCK, 6 TH STREET, 18 TH MAIN ROAD, VALLALAR KUDIYERUPPU, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 40. [PAN: AAGCA9006R] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.M. MOHANDASS, C.A. / DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.03.2019 I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 3 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 18, CHENNAI ALL DATED 23.02.2018 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE BALANCE LIABILITY AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS OUTSTANDING LAND ADVANCE TREATED AS INCOME UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT]. SINCE SINGLE COMMON GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED ALL THE APPEALS AGAINST DIFFERENT ASSESSEES PERTAINING TO ONE GROUP, HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE CASES, THE ASSESSEES HAVE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AT THE STAGE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT UNDER CESSATION OF LIABILITY. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR PLEADED FOR REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 4 DISCUSSING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS BY CONSIDERING VARIOUS CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE BALANCE LIABILITY WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED NOT HAVING BEEN WRITTEN OFF YET IN ITS BOOKS AND THUS PRAYED FOR SUSTAINING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW INCLUDING THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HAVE TAKEN THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1647/CHNY/2018 AS LEAD CASE. I.T.A. NO. 1647/CHNY/2018 [M/S. RPD EARTH MOVERS P. LTD.] 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 07.03.2016 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY SHOW-CAUSING THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF .2,84,45,000/- SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY WAY OF LETTER AND AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1014-15 ON 18.03.2016, IN WHICH UNDER COLUMN NO. 2 OF PART A-P&L, THE ASSESSEE HAD INDICATED AN AMOUNT OF .1,66,90,000/- AS 'CESSATION OF LIABILITY'. THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 5 OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF .1,17,55,000/- AS PER THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ADMITTED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. MOREOVER, IN THE SCHEDULE PART B- TI OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN, THE INCOME WAS SHOWN AS .1,66,90,000/- AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR AN AUDIT EXPENDITURE, RATES & TAXES AND BANK CHARGES OF .34,935/-. WHEN IT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT ADMITTED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND AMOUNT AS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNT OF .1,17,55,000/- WAS STILL BEING SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING IN HIS BOOKS AND THEY HAVE OFFERED THOSE ADVANCES THAT HAVE CEASED TO BE A LIABILITY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUNDS THAT (I) AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, SRI R.P. DARMALINGAM, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE GROUP COMPANIES FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.09.2013 OFFERING AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF .35,00,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUP COMPANIES. (II) ON 12.11.2013, HE FILED A LETTER WHERE HE GAVE A BREAKUP OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WHERE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. RPD EARTH MOVERS PVT LTD IS ADMITTED AT .2,84,45,000/- WITH THE REMARK 'ADVANCE RECEIVED BALANCE DUE AS ON 31.03.2013'. MOREOVER, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED REGARDING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LAND ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED REGARDING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 6 LAND ADVANCES. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE LAND ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE OUTSTANDING LAND ADVANCES OF .2,84,45,000 AS ON 31.03.2013 AS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT [CESSATION OF LIABILITY]. SINCE THE ENTIRE LAND ADVANCE OF .4,82,65,000/- WAS CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS, THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY DETERMINING THE INCOME AT .2,84,45,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 2015 ON A PROTECTIVE BASIS BY ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR . 34,935/- ON ACCOUNT OF AUDIT FEES, RATES & TAXES AND BANK CHARGES. 5.1 ON APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON, BY REPRODUCING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND WHILE ELABORATELY DISCUSSING THE POINT AT ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATED TO COVER A PARTICULAR FACT SITUATION. THE SECTION APPLIES WHERE A TRADING LIABILITY WAS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN AN EARLIER YEAR IN COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRADING LIABILITY IN A LATER YEAR BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION OF THE LIABILITY. IN SUCH A CASE THE SECTION SAYS THAT I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 7 WHATEVER BENEFITS HAS ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LATER YEAR BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION OF THE LIABILITY WILL BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THAT YEAR. THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND THE SECTION IS SIMPLE. IT IS A PROVISION INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET AWAY WITH A DOUBLE BENEFIT ONCE BY WAY OF DEDUCTION IN AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND AGAIN BY NOT BEING TAXED ON THE BENEFIT RECEIVED BY HIM IN A LATER YEAR WITH REFERENCE TO THE LIABILITY EARLIER ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. MOREOVER, IF AFTER TAXING THE AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT CONSIDERABLE TIME HAS ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF THE DEBT DURING WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE MONIES IN HIS BUSINESS, IF IT IS FOUND THAT, IN ANOTHER LATER YEAR THE CREDITOR HAS RECOVERED THE MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR SUCH PAYMENT. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY IN A CASE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STATUTE BEING FULFILLED. THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF LAW ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASES WHERE THE LIABILITY STOOD REMITTED OR CEASED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LIABILITY TO THE CREDITORS CONTINUES TO BE SHOWN IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT BEEN WRITTEN BACK. JUST BECAUSE AN ASSESSEE MAKES AN ENTRY IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNILATERALLY, HE CANNOT GET RID OF HIS LIABILITY. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LIABILITY IS ACTUALLY BARRED BY I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 8 LIMITATION IS NOT A MATTER WHICH CAN BE DECIDED BY CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ALONE BUT IT IS A MATTER WHICH HAS TO BE DECIDED ONLY IF THE CREDITOR IS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CREDITOR, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE DEBIT IS BARRED AND HAS BECOME UNENFORCEABLE. THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ENABLE THE CREDITOR TO COME WITH A PROCEEDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEBT EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE NORMAL PERIOD OF LIMITATION. MOREOVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL, INCLUDING ANY STATEMENT FROM THE CREDITORS, THAT THE DEBTS HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED AND THE LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO PAY THEM AS CEASED. FURTHER, UNPAID LIABILITIES CANNOT BE ADDED AS THE ASSESSEES INCOME UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT MERELY BECAUSE THEY REMAINED UNPAID FOR A SUFFICIENTLY LONG TIME AND THAT IT IS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE CREDITORS HAS CEASED OR HAS BEEN REMITTED BY THE CREDITORS. 5.2 IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED THE LIABILITY AS CEASED/NON-EXISTENCE, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE LIABILITY IS BEING SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS OR HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE NECESSARY DETAILS LIKE PAN/ADDRESS OF THE CREDITORS OR THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF THE CREDITORS CLAIMING THEIR DEBTS IN FUTURE AND APPLIED SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT BY ADDING THE LIABILITY TO THE I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 9 TAXABLE INCOME OF THE DEBTOR. HOWEVER, IT IS AN AGREED POSITION THAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S BALANCE SHEET, THE IMPUGNED LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN, WHICH ARE PAYABLE TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. SUCH LIABILITIES, SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET, INDICATE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DEBTS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE SUCH LIABILITY IS OUTSTANDING FOR THE LAST TWO TO THREE YEARS, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE SAID LIABILITIES HAVE CEASED TO EXIST. IT IS ALSO CONCEDED POSITION THAT THERE IS NO BILATERAL ACT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CREDITORS, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE SAID LIABILITIES HAVE CEASED TO EXIST. IN ABSENCE OF ANY BILATERAL ACT, THE SAID LIABILITIES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED TO HAVE CEASED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND HE HAS ALSO PLACED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THESE DECISIONS LAID DOWN BY THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS: (I) HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD. 343 ITR 408 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY IF THE AMOUNT IS NOT WRITTEN BACK IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. (II) HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHOGILAL RAMJIBHAI ATARA IN ITA NO.588 OF 2013 DECIDED ON 04.02.2014 HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS UNCLAIMED LIABILITY OF EARLIER YEARS WHERE EVEN CREDITORS ARE UNTRACEABLE AND LIABILITIES ARE NON-GENUINE, THEN ALSO THE ADDITION CANNOT BE I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 10 MADE U/S 41(1) SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN IT BACK IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. (III) THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TAMIL NADU WAREHOUSING CORPORATION 292 ITR 310 (MAD) AT PARA NO.9 HELD THAT THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT IT IS A LIABILITY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. ONCE IT IS SHOWN AS LIABILITY BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS WRONG ON HOLDING THAT THE SAME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS A CESSATION OF LIABILITY, SECTION 41 WILL NOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE. 5.3 BY CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO APPLYING THE RATIOS OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ENTIRE LAND ADVANCES OF .2,84,45,000/- SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT BY REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PORTION OF THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO .1,66,90,000/- HAD BEEN ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE BALANCE LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO .1,17,55,000/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS I.T.A. NO. 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/18 11 NOT HAVING BEEN WRITTEN OFF YET IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. SINCE THE REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL ISSUE IN SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NOS. 1644, 1645, 1648, 1649, 1650 & 1651/CHNY/2018, BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1647/CHNY/2018, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 8 TH MARCH, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, 08.03.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.