Mission Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1712/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2602 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1712/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mission Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 311, 3 rd Floor, Vardhman Plaza, Pocket-7, Plot No.6, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi-110070 PAN No.AAACF2095H Vs ITO Ward- 6 (4) New Delhi (APPELLAN (RESPONDENT) Appellant None Respondent Ms. Neha Tomar, SR. DR Date of hearing: 27/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27/07/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-33, New Delhi dated 28.12.2016 pertaining to A.Y.2012-13 2 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of repetitive notices, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. Having heard the Ld. DR we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. 4. We find that the solitary quarrel is in respect of interest expenditure of Rs.2,88,63,585/- which was capitalised by the assessee towards purchase of shares and such capitalisation dismissed by the AO / CIT(A) as being incurred after the 3 acquisition of the shares. When the assessment was challenged before the CIT(A) the CIT(A) found that identical quarrel was in A.Y.2011-12 wherein his predecessor in office has decided the issue against the assessee. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) read as under :- 4 5. The perusal of the assessment order also show that similar issue arose in earlier assessment years also and the AO has followed the findings given in earlier assessment years and the CIT(A) has also followed the order of the appellate authority for 5 A.Y.2011-12. 6 Considering the totality, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 7. Decision announced in the open court on 27.07.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:-27.07.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI