DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. New Line Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 364/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3934 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R M MEHTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.364/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 DCIT, CIRCLE 18(1), NEW DELHI. VS. NEW LINE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 11 TH FLOOR, NARAIN MANZIL, 22, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI. PAN: AACCN3847R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.M. MEHTA, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.10.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 27.10.2014 IN RELATION TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. ITA NO.364/DEL/2015 2 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 13 DAYS IN FILING THE APP EAL BY THE REVENUE. THE LD. DR EXPLAINED THE REASONS WITH WHICH WE ARE SATI SFIED. THE LD. AR DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO IT. WE, THER EFORE, CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS A PPEAL:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE & IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF AMOUNTING TO R S.1,57,56,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDING THAT NEITHER ANY INTEREST HAD ACCRUED ON THE COMMITMENT DEPOSIT NOR ANY INTEREST IS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE & IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS M ENTIONED BY THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FULL RIGHT TO RE COVER THE DEMAND? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE & IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, ANY INCOME DUE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THOUGH MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVE D SHALL BE ADDED AS INCOME ON ACCRUAL/NOTIONAL BASIS? 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 5. THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT SIMILAR ISSUES WERE RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITA NO.364/DEL/2015 3 ITS ORDER DATED 20.03.2017 IN ITA NO.733/DEL/2014, HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD. DR CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.10.201 7. SD/- SD/- [KULDIP SINGH] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 24 TH OCTOBER, 2017. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.