ACIT, Faridabad V. M/s. Talbros Engineering Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 3872/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86591 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 14-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDRAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA; ASHWANI TANEJA S; RAJESH TALWAR MD
• Keywords: Capital receipt

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM ITA NOS.3872 & 4035/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2007-08 ACIT, CIRCLE-I, BLOCK I-B, NEW CGO COMPLEX, FARIDABAD. VS. TALBROS ENGINEERING LTD., PLOT NO.74-75, SECTOR-6, FARIDABAD. PAN : AABCT0247L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJ A, ADVOCATES & SHRI RAJESH TALWAR, MD DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI J.P. CHANDRAKAR, SR. DR ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM : THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN RELATION TO THE AYS 2006-07 & 2007-08. ITA NOS.3872 & 4035/DEL/2010 2 AY 2006-07 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.7,17,329/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSIDY ON SALES-TAX BY TREATING IT AS REVENUE RECEIPT. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GROUND ARE, MUTATIS MUTANDIS , SIMILAR TO THOSE OF GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. VIDE OUR SEPARATE ORDER P ASSED FOR THIS EARLIER YEAR, WE HAVE UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE INST ANT YEAR AND THE PRECEDING YEAR, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN FOR THE AY 2005-06, WE UPH OLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AY 2007-08 5. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DE LETION OF ADDITION OF RS.16,27,422/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSIDY ON SALES TAX TREATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AS AGAINST THE AO TREATING IT AS A REVENUE RECEIPT. ITA NOS.3872 & 4035/DEL/2010 3 6. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GROUND ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE PRECEDING YEAR. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN DELETI NG THIS ADDITION. 7. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC MADE BY THE AO OUT OF OTHER EXPENSES OF RS.50,81,111/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR A SUM OF RS.50.81 LAC UNDER T HE HEAD OTHER EXPENSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN ALL T HE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED A SUM OF RS.1 LAC SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTIO N. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONDITIONAL OFFER AND MADE THE ADDITION FOR A SUM O F RS.1 LAC. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS FOUND AS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT SOME O F THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS HEAD WERE NOT PROPERLY BACKED B Y EVIDENCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF `1 LAC ON THIS SCORE. REVERSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE, WE REST ORE THE ADDITION AS WAS MADE BY THE AO. ITA NOS.3872 & 4035/DEL/2010 4 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.01.201 5. SD/- SD/- [A.T. VARKEY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 19 TH JANUARY, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.