ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4509/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1681 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S L ANURAGI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4509/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ACIT, CIRCLE-12(1), NEW DELHI. VS. HOLCIM INDIA PVT. LTD., SUITE NO.304, 3 RD FLOOR, DLF SOUTH COURT, NEW DELHI. PAN: AABCH3635C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.10.2015 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 30.5.2014 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,55,71,643/- ITA NO.4509/DEL/2014 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE DECLARED REVENUE RECEIPTS OF RS.8,74,667/-. AS AGAINST THAT , THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,55,71,643/ -. THE AO OPINED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SET UP AN D, HENCE, NO DEDUCTION COULD BE ALLOWED. HE, THEREFORE, MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1.55 CRORE. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY RELYING ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER PASSED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE AS SESSEES FAVOUR. THE LD. AR INVITED MY ATTENTION TOWARDS A COPY OF THE JUDGM ENT RENDERED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AYS 2007- 08 AND 2008-09 IN WHICH A CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS B EEN RECORDED THAT THE BUSINESS WAS SET UP AND HAD COMMENCED. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN NOTICED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQ UIRED TO INCUR EXPENSES FOR THE BUSINESS IN THE FORM OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF CEMENT COMPANIES. THAT IS HOW THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS, IN IDENTICAL CIRCU MSTANCES, FOR ITA NO.4509/DEL/2014 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 200-09, ALLOWED DEDUC TION FOR SUCH EXPENSES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, I A LSO ORDER FOR THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES BECAUSE NO DISTINGUISHING FAC TS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIS--VIS THOSE CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE BY THE L D. DR. I, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED IS DISMISS ED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 6 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- (R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED:06 TH OCTOBER, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI