ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Jab Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4847/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 484720114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH YADAV
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 68; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 4847/DEL/11 A.YR. 2008-09 ACIT CIR. 4(1), VS. M/S JAB CONSTRUCTION PVT. LT D., NEW DELHI. 707, CHIRANJIV TOWER, 43, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI. PAN/ GIR NO. AAACJ0097M ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHASHI BHUSHAN SHUKLA DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAKASH YADAV ADV. O R D E R PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M: : THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DA TED 02-08-2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE U/S 24(A) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 18,80,371/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED CLAIM OF RS. 1 8,80,371/- IN TERMS OF SEC. 24(A) OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE CIT(A) THAT: DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED RENT FROM ITS PROPERTY AT B-8 JANGPURA NEW DELHI AM OUNTING TO RS. 62,67,904/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN RECEIVI NG THIS RENTAL INCOME IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE COMMISSION ER (APPEALS) AS WELL AS BY THE JURISDCITIONAL TRIBUNAL I.E. ITAT, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT SELF AND THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE C ONSISTENTLY. COPIES OF ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (*APPEALS) AS WELL AS ITAT, 2 NEW DELHI FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 WERE SUBMITT ED TO THE LD. AO VIDE LETTER DATED 11.11.2010. COPIES OF THE SAME ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND REFERENCE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, THE CIT(A) F OUND THAT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 DECIDED IN ITA NOS. 3591 & 3 592/DEL/09 VIDE ORDER DATED 15-10-2009. 5. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICE R AND CIT(A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2004- 05 & 2005-06 IN CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF. IT IS FURT HER NOTED THAT LIKE CLAIMS FOR A.Y. 2001-02 TO 2003-04, WERE ALSO ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITSELF, WE UPHOLD T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION ON THIS ISSUE. 7. REMAINING ISSUE IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 0 LACS BY NOTICING THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM DR . VED GOSWAMI. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS . 6 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM DR. VED GOSWAMI DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO 3 RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 4 LACS FROM DR. GOSWAMI IN EA RLIER YEAR. COPY OF PASSPORT OF DR. GOSWAMI, CONFIRMATION FOR THE AMOUN T RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR; COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILED BY SHRI VE D GOSWAMI FOR THREE YEARS 2007, 2008 & 2009 WERE ALSO FILED. COPY OF PA N WAS ALSO GIVEN ALONG WITH COPY OF BIO DATA OF DR. VED GOSWAMI RUNN ING INTO 21 PAGES CONSISTING COMPLETE DETAILS INCLUDING ADDRESS, PHON E NO., FAX NO., ETC. ETC. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. 159 ITR 78 (SC). 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, CIT(A) FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT A SUM OF RS. 4 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN EARL IER YEAR, THEREFORE, ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. REGARDING REMAINING AMOUNT IT WAS FOUND BY CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS PROVING THE AMOUNT OF AD VANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS GENUINE. THE DECISIONS OF THE APEX COUR T IN THE CASES OF A. GOVINDARAJULU MUDALIAR VS. CIT 34 ITR 807; AND CIT VS. DEVI PRASAD VISHWANATH PRASAD 72 ITR 194 AND MANY OTHER DECISIO NS, MENTIONED IN THE ORDER CO CIT(A) AT PAGES 10 & 11 WERE CONSIDERED AND IT WAS FOUND THAT ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED. ACCORDINGLY, CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 11. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER . ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). A SUM OF RS. 4 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN EARLIER AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THEREFORE, NO 4 ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. REGARDING OTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 6 LACS, RECEIVED DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS ALON G WITH COPY OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF A FLAT LOCATED AT B-8, JANGPURA, NEW D ELHI, WHICH INCLUDES HIS NAME, ADDRESS AND OCCUPATION. COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS, ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE ALSO FILED AND THEY WERE NOT FOUND WRO NG OR NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, THE ONUS LAY UPON THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY DISCHARGED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 6 8 ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT CIT(A) WAS J USTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS COU NT. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09-08-2012. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09-08-2012. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 5