DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Nirman Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2210/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8834 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARTA TRANA PANDA ADVS
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI , AM AND SH. A. T VA RK E Y , JM ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1) N EW DELHI VS M/ S NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., 8/23, MEHRAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A ACN0982D A SSESSEE BY : SH. SATYEN SETHI & ARTA TRANA PANDA, ADVS. REVENUE BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJHA, SR DR DATE OF HEARIN G : 02.02.2015 DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 . 02 .201 5 ORDER P ER N. K. SAINI , AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2012 OF LD. CIT(A) - X V I , NEW DELHI. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAIS ED IN THIS APPEAL : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE . 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY INTERPRETING THE WORD SURPLUS AS INTEREST THOUGH TH E INTEREST IN THIS CASE IS PENAL IN NATURE AND NOT AN EXCESS AMOUNT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT CLAUSE 7 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MERELY CONCERNED WITH THE COMPENSATION AND NOT INTEREST. ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 2 4. THE AP PELLANT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND/OR DELETE OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUND IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF TRADING AND REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2009 , DECLARING NIL INCOME AND CURRENT YEAR LOSS OF RS. 99,700/ - . LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT IN THE NOTES OF ACCOUNT T HE ASSESSEE HAS QUALIFIED THAT DURING THE YEAR DISTRICT COURT GURGAON AWARDED COMPENSATION OF RS. 25.92 LACS AND INTEREST OF RS. 31.82 LACS FOR THE COMPANIES LAND ACQUIRED BY HUDA DURING 1997 TO 2000. IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT SUPRA SUCH COMPENSATION AND INTEREST WAS PASSED ON FULLY TO THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AS FIXED SHARE OF PROFIT PER ACRE OF LAND DEVELOPED AND SOLD BY DEVELOPER COMPANY HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR THE COMPANY IN EARLIER YEAR. CONSEQUENTLY THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED HAVE BEEN PASSED ON TO THE DEVELOPER COMPANY HENCE IS ADJUSTED IN ACCOUNTS WITH THE AMOUNT PAID. THE AO ASKED ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 3 THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY CO MPENSATION ON ACQUISITION OF LAND RECEIVED FROM HUDA AND ITS INTEREST MAY NOT BE TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WHICH INTEREST FREE FUNDS HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AND THE COMPENSATION SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE SHALL BE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AND THE ASSOCIATE COMPANY SHALL IMMEDIATELY MAKE OVER THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED TO THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT CLAUSE 7 OF THE AGREEMENT BOUND THE ASSESSEE TO HAND OVER THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED TO DEVELOPER COMPANY AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO RIGHT OF COMPENSATION OR INTEREST ON IT , HENCE IT WAS NOT SHOWN AS INCOME. THE AO , HOWEVER , DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,82,075/ - WHICH WAS THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON COMPENSATION OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND. 6 . BEI NG AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND READ AS UNDER: THIS APPEAL IS SOLELY DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.31,82,075/ - MADE BY THE LEARNED AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH THE DEVELOPER COMPANY (ANSAL ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 4 PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED), THE INTEREST ON COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND GRANT ED BY THE GOVERNMENT BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT ACCOMPANY AND NOT TO THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED IS THE DEVELOPER COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS CONSISTING OF PURCHASES OF LAND, THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND SALE IN PLOTS OR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES ETC . THEREON FOR SALE. UNDER THE LANDS CEILING ACT, THE DEVELOPER COMPANY CANNOT BUY LA NDS BEYOND A SPECIFIED LIMIT IN ITS NAME. THEREFORE, A NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE COMPANIES OF WHICH THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS ONE WERE FLOATED BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY WITH A VIEW TO PURCHASE THE LANDS IN THEIR NAMES WITH THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS PROVIDED TO THEM BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AND THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES THEREAFTER PLACING THE LANDS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. THE LANDS ARE DEVELOPED AND MARKETED BY THE DEVELOPER AT ITS OWN COST. :THE MAXIMUM CONSIDERATION PAYABLE BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY TO THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES FOR THE SERVICES SO RENDERED WAS @ RS. 30,00 0 / - PER ACRE TO ACCRUE AND B ECOME PAYABLE ON THE BOOKING OF SOLD AREAS RECORDED BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY WITH THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENTS THAT THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SHARE OF DEFICIENCY OR LOSSES OR BE ENTITLED TO ANY SHARE OF SURPLUS OR PROCEEDS MADE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANDS AND SALE THEREOF THE MAXIMUM CONSIDERATION @ RS.30,000/ - PER ACRE WAS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE 10 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREE MENT. CLAUSE 7 OF THE AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT IN CASE ANY PART OF THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES WERE TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE DEVELOPER COMPANY SHALL IMMEDIATE, MAKE GOOD TO THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES ANY LOSSES ARISI NG BY WAY OF SUCH ACQUISITION AND ALL THE COSTS AND EXPENSES FOR ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 5 PURSUING THE CLAIM OF COMPENSATION SHALL ALSO BE BORNE BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. IT FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE DEVELOPER COMPANY SHALL ADJUST THE COST OF ACQUISITION INCLUDING ALL LEGAL EXPENS ES AND COSTS INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES AGAINST THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES MADE BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY TO THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES AND TO THAT EXTENT, THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES SHALL ST AND REDUCED. ANY DEFICIENCY/SURPLUS ARISING ON SETTLEMENT OF COMPENSATION SHALL BE BORNE /RECEIVED BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY/IN THE NAME OF THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES SHALL BE ON THE ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPER COMPANY AND THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES SHALL IMMEDIATE MAKE OVER THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED TO THE DEVELOPER COMPANY, ANY DEFICIENCY OR SURPLUS BEING ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. SOME LANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY (ASSOCIATE COMPANY) HAD BEEN ACQUIRED IN E ARLIER YEARS AND COMPENSATION OF RS.25,92,322/ - ALONGWITH THE COMPENSATORY INTEREST OF RS.31,82,075/ - WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 7 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE SURPLUS REPRESENTING INTEREST BELONGED TO AND WAS MADE O VER TO THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. IT IS THIS CLAUSE 7 WHICH HAS BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD, MISCONSTRUED, MISREAD AND MISINTERPRETED BY THE LEARNED AO IN HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST ON COMPENSATION UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND NOT TO THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PLAIN READING OF THE AGREEMENT UNAMBIGUOUSLY PROVIDES THAT THE ANY DEFICIENCY OR SURPLUS ARRIVING ON ACQUISITION OF LAND WAS TO BE BORNE BY AND BELONGED TO THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. THIS IS A COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH HAVE TO BE READ AND INTERPRETED IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 6 HAVE UNDERSTOOD AND IMPLEMENTED THE SAME. THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT ASSIGNED ANY REASON WHATEVER FOR HOLDING THAT UNDER CLAUSE 7 OF THE AGREEMENT, THE SURPLUS REPRESENTED INTEREST ON COMPENSATION BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IT MAY BE SUBMITTED HERE THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS AN ASSOCIATE COMPANY DID NOT MAKE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND OR BORE ANY EXPENDITURE I NCURRED ON PURSUING THE LITIGATION REGARDING THE CLAIM. SIMILAR AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN IN FORCE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AND LARGE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE COMPANIES FOR THE LAST OVER 30 YEARS AND HAVE BEEN ACTED UPON BY THE PARTIES AND ACCEPTED BY THE REV ENUE. EVEN IN THE PRESENT AGREEMENT, THERE ARE THREE MORE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES. WHETHER CLAUSE 7 IS READ IN ISOLATION OR IN THE CONTEXT OF ENTIRE AGREEMENT, THERE IS NO DOUBT WHATEVER ABOUT THE MEANING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DULY AC TED UPON BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AND THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A COURT CANNOT RE - WRITE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTRARY TO THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE COURTS OR ANY THIRD PARTY IN DISREGARDING THE AGREEMENT AND THE LEGAL EFFECT OF A CONTRACT CANNOT BE OBLITERATED BY PUTTING INTERPRETATION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE LANGUAGE USED AND THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE AGREEMENT AND THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES DULY ACTED UPON BY THEM. THE INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE 7 IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND AS AGREED UPON BETWEEN AND ACTED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IT MAY BE SUBMITTED AND IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AO THAT BY MAKING THESE ARRANGEMENTS TH ERE HAS BEEN ANY LOSS TO THE REVENUE. THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY I.E. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED IN ITS ACCOUNTS AS ITS INCOME AND HAS ALSO PAID TAX THEREON AT THE MAXIMUM RATE OF TAX. SO THERE CANNOT BE ANY TAX ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 7 ANGLE TO IT. ON THE ABOVE FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO ALL FACTS, LOGIC AND LAW OF THE CASE. DURING THE LAST HEARING OF THE CASE ON 24.12.2012, THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE COPY OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER OF M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ALONGWITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT THE SUM OF RSW.31,82,075 / - HAS BEEN DECLARED BY AND ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE DEVELOPER CO MPANY I.E. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE ENCLOSED. 1. COPY OF THE AUDITED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY SHOWING THE PROFIT OF RS.5221.52 LACS (PAGES.1 TO 2) ALONGWITH SCHEDULE - 13 (PAGE 3) IN WH ICH RS.803.81 LACS HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AS INCOME BEING COMPENSATION FROM HUDA IN RESPECT OF LANDS ACQUIRED IN EARLIER YEARS. BREAK - UP OF THE AGGREGATE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.803.81 LACS INCLUDES RS.57,74,398/ - AS COMPENSATION RECEIVED THROUGH THE AP PELLANT COMPANY (PAGE 4). AS EXPLAINED IN PARA 1.3 OF THE BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 24.12.2012, RS. 25, 92,322/ - REPRESENTED THE COMPENSATION AND RS. 31,82,075/ - REPRESENTED THE INTEREST THEREON. 2. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF NET ASSESSABLE INCOME FI LED ALONGWITH RETURN (PAGE 5) WHICH STARTS WITH THE PROFIT OF RS. 5221.52 LACS AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. AS PER ITS RETURN OF INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AT RS.39,04,29,465/ - (RS.3904.09 LACS) (PAGE 9). 3. COPY OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER (PAGES 10 TO 16) WHICH STARTS WITH THE RETURNED INCOME OFRS.39,04,29,465/ - TO ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 8 WHICH FURTHER ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE THEREBY ASSESSING THE INCOME OF RS.55,00,85,728/ - . THE ABOVE WILL SHOW THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN DULY DECLARED AND AS SESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. THE STATEMENT AT PAGE 4 WILL FURTHER SHOW THAT AS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THE DEVELOPER COMPANY HAS ALSO RECEIVED SIMILAR COMPENSATION ETC FROM OTHER ASSOCIATE COMPANIES UNDER THE SAME TYPE OF AGR EEMENTS/ARRANGEMENTS. 7 . THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY I.E . M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INF RASTRUCTURE LTD. REVEALED THAT THE COMPENSATORY INTEREST OF RS. 31,82,075/ - HAD BEEN DECLARED BY AND ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FURNISHED BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY , IT WAS EVIDENT THAT AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DEVELOPER COMPANY HAS ALSO RECEIVED SIMILAR COMPENSATION FROM OTHER ASSOCIATE COMPANIES UNDER THE SIMILAR TYPE OF AGREEMENT/ARRANGEMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED. 8 . NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS I N APPEAL. THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.11.2011. ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 9 9 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. C IT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE DEVELOPER COMPANY M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. COULD NOT BUY LAND S BEYOND SPEC IFIED LIMIT IN ITS NAME DUE TO LANDS C EILING ACT . THEREFORE, A NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE COMPANIES WERE FLOATED AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS O NE OF THOSE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES, T HE DEVELOPER COMPANY W ITH A VIEW TO PURCHASE THE LANDS PROVIDED INTEREST FREE FUNDS. THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AND THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , CLAUSE 7 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT IN CASE ANY PART OF THE LAND PURCHASE D BY THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES WAS TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE D EVELOPER COMPANY SHALL IMMEDIATELY MAKE GOOD TO THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES ANY LOSSES ARISING BY WAY OF SUCH ACQUISITION AND ALL THE COSTS AND EXPENSES FOR PURSUING THE CLAIM OF COMPENSAT ION SHALL ALSO BE BORNE BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. IT FURTHER PROVIDED THAT ANY DEFICIENCY/SURPLUS ARISING ON SETTLEMENT OF COMPENSATION SHALL ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 10 BE BORNE/RECEIVED BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AND THAT THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY/IN THE NAME OF ASSO CIATE COMPANIES SHALL BE ON THE ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPER COMPANY AND THE ASSOCIATE COMPANIES SHALL IMMEDIATE LY MAKE OVER THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED TO THE DEVELOPER COMPANY, ANY DEFICIENCY OR SURPLUS BEING ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. THE AFORESAID FACTS WERE NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE COMPENSATORY INTEREST OF RS. 31,82,075/ - WAS SHOWN AS AN INCOME BY THE DEVELOPER COMPANY AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALSO TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY. THIS FACT WAS VERIFIED BY THE LD. C IT(A) WHO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. (THE DEVELOPER COMPANY) ALONGWITH FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(A) VERIFIED FROM THE DOCUMENTS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS. 31,82,075/ - HAD BEEN DECLARED BY AND ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY I.E. M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. IN THE PRESENT CASE C OMPENSATORY INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 31,82,075/ - HAD BEEN DECLARED BY AND ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE DEVELOPER COMPANY I.E. M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., THEREFORE, THE ADDITION ITA NO. 2210 /DEL/201 3 NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 11 MADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME INTEREST INCOME, WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRONOU N CED IN T HE OPEN COURT ON 02/0 2 / 201 5 ) . SD/ - SD/ - ( A. T. VA RK E Y ) ( N. K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 02 / 0 2 / 2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR