ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Splendor Landbase Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4425/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7424 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SM MATHUR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4425/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YR: 2009-10 ACIT, CIRCLE 9(1), VS. M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LT D., NEW DELHI. F-38/2, SPLENDOR HOUSE, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAECA 3986 E ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH KUMAR DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.M. MATHUR CA DATE OF HEARING : 20-08-2014 DATE OF ORDER : 28-08-2014. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:- THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 8-5- 2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI, IN AP PEAL NO. 453/11-12, RELATING TO A.Y. 2009-10. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEV ELOPMENT AND SPACE MANAGEMENT SERVICES. IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INC OME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME ITA NO. 4425/DEL/2012 ACIT VS. SPLENDER LANDBASE LTD. 2 OF RS. 7,53.58,547/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVE D THAT UTILITY CHARGES OF RS. 25,07,045/- IN AY 2007-08 INCREASED TO RS. 61,0 3,931/- IN AY 2008-09; AND CONVEYANCE & TRAVELING EXPENSES OF RS. 44,42,80 2/- IN AY 2008-09 INCREASED TO RS. 71,62,160/- IN AY 2009-10. THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE STEEP INCREASE IN THESE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9 LACS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVING T HAT PERUSAL OF DETAILS FILED SHOWED THAT CERTAIN PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH. HE POINTED OUT THAT PERSONAL ELEMENT IN THESE EXPENSES ALSO COULD NOT B E RULED OUT. 2.1. LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE, INTER ALI A, OBSERVING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LACS O N AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY PARTICULAR DEFECT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY CONCRETE E VIDENCE FOR DISALLOWANCE. LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) FRIENDS CLEARING AGENCY (P) LTD. VS. CIAT 332 ITR 2 69(DEL.); (II) BIRLASOFT (INDIA) LTD. VS. DCIT 136 TTJ 505 DELHI ( 2011) 3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF COMPANY AD HOC DISALLOWANCE COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE GROUND OF PER SONAL EXPENSES. FURTHER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS U PHELD. ITA NO. 4425/DEL/2012 ACIT VS. SPLENDER LANDBASE LTD. 3 4. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28-08-2014. SD/- SD/- ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28-08-2014. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR