DCIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Gautam R. Chadha, New Delhi

ITA 2123/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3581 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2123/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DCIT, CIR.31 (1), CR BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI. VS. SHRI GAUTAM R. CHADHA, 601, ASHOKA ESTATE, 24, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI. PAN : AADPC5798A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE G ROUND OF APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.1,10,83,264/- MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF COM MISSION INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT OF THE CASE T HAT THE A.O. CORRECTLY MADE THIS ADDITION BY TREATING 25% OF THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES OF RS.4,92,58,950/- RECEIVED FROM THE CUST OMERS AFTER GIVING CREDIT OF 10% ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL AGENTS CO MMISSION OUT OF THESE ADVANCES AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , ON THE DATE OF HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. AS IT WAS FOUND THAT CIT (A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ORDER OF ITAT IN EA RLIER YEARS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL E X PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2123/DEL/2010 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CRUISE TRAVEL BEING AN AUTHORIZED AGENT OF M/S ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LTD. BASED IN USA. ACCORDING TO THE PREVALENT PRACTICE OF THE BUSINESS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES ADVA NCES FROM CUSTOMERS WHICH ARE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TRAVEL IN THE FUTURE DATES . 25% FROM SUCH BOOKING ADVANCES WERE DISALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY CIT (A). THE ITAT, HOWEVER, DELETED T HE DISALLOWANCE FOR THAT YEAR AND THE SAID ORDER WAS FOLLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) THAT IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION BY FOLLOW ING THE DECISION OF ITAT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE FACTUAL ASPECT, LD. CIT (A) HAS DE LETED THE ADDITION. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, IN APPEAL. 4. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PLEADE D THAT DISALLOWANCE HAS WRONGLY BEEN DELETED BY CIT (A). THE FACTUAL ASPEC T THAT IN EARLIER YEARS THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE HAS N OT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. 5. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS BASED ON THE O RDER OF ITAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS REFERRED TO THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04 WHICH HAS NOW BEEN REVERSED BY THE ITAT. 6. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AS THE DELETION H AS BEEN DONE BY THE CIT (A) ON THE BASIS OF ITAT ORDER IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2005-06 AND LOOKING INTO THE FACT THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 NO SUCH ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE DELETION MADE BY THE CIT (A). ITA NO.2123/DEL/2010 3 7. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.07.20 10. SD/- SD/- [B.C. MEENA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 16.07.2010. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES