Accession Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi V. DCIT, Circle-1(2), New Delhi

ITA 2791/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Accession Buildwell Private Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, which confirmed a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.59,10,679 on account of pre-operative expenses for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been previously decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years, specifically citing ITA No.2336/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13. The Departmental Representative could not provide a distinguishing decision that favored the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to uphold the precedent and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115896 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2019
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.2336/Del/2016, ITA No. 2001/Del/2012, ITA 153/2014, ITA No. 5841/Del/2013, ITA No. 3973/Del/2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. C. M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2791/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Accession Buildwell Private Ltd. 306-308, 3 rd Floor, Square One, C-2, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-17 PAN No.AAFCA6909E Vs DCIT Circle -1 (2) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant Sh. A. T. Panda, Advocate Respondent Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr DR Date of hearing: 07/12/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 07/12/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 31.01.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2015- 16. 2 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO amounting to Rs.59,10,679/- on account of pre operative expenses. 3. At the very outset the Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue has been decided by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in earlier assessment years. The Counsel supplied the copy of the Tribunal in ITA No.2336/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13. 4. Per contra the DR could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the revenue. 5. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the Counsel. The impugned quarrel is coming out from the earlier assessment years and in fact while confirming the disallowance the CIT(A) at para-5.3.2. of his order has followed the findings given by his predecessor for A.Y.2012-13. 6. We find that in A.Y.2012-13 this Tribunal in ITA No.2336/Del/2016 at the occasion to consider the quarrel and held as under :- 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12. It is pointed out that debentures were issued first time during the previous year relevant to AY 2008-09. Since then it is a recurring issue. He further submitted that against the Tribunal’s order in ITA No. 2001/Del/2012 dated 09.09.2013 for AY 2008-09 the Revenue filed appeal under 3 section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which by their judgment in ITA 153/2014 dated 27.04.2015 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on this issue. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO / CIT(A). 5. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the material on the records. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 5841/Del/2013 for AY 2010-11 and in ITA No. 3973/Del/2014 for AY 2011-12 would show that interest on debentures of Rs. 3,43,52,440/- and Rs. 5,67,30,409/- charged to P&L account in AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively were disallowed by the Ld. AO which were upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). When the matter was taken by the assesee before the Tribunal, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in AY 2010-11 by observing as under:- “10. After considering the relevant findings given in the impugned order as well as order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY 2008- 09, we find that the Assessing Officer has treated the expenditure of Rs. 3,43,52,440/- as pre-operative, whereas the assessee’s case has been that the business has already been set up and land has been acquired for its project, as the assessee’s core business is development of project as builder and developer. We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, wherein this issue has been allowed as revenue expenditure. Thus following the earlier year precedence, this issue too is decided in favour of the assessee”. 5.1 For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal observed in para 16 of its order that the ground raised in this year is same as in AY 2010-11 which arises out of similar set of facts and therefore, the finding given therein will apply here in this year also. 6. Accordingly, following the decision (supra) of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding two assessment years we decide ground No. 2 in favour of the assessee as the facts and circumstances remain the same in AY 2012-13 as well. 7. On finding parity of facts respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra) we direct the AO to delete the impugned disallowance of Rs.5,91,0679/-. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4 8. Decision announced in the open court on 07.12.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M. GARG) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:- .12.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI