ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, New Delhi

ITA 5700/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74226 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: B K MANJANI

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5700/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09) ACIT, CIRCLE - 32(1), ROOM NO. 376A, C.R. BUILDING, IP EST ATE, NEW DELHI VS. JATINDER PAL SINGH C - 129, LAJPAT NAGAR - I NEW DELHI PAN AATPS1549R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. BHATIA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: B. K. MANJANI, ADV. O R D E R PER A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - XXVI , NEW DELHI DATED 24.10.2011 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,96,519/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE EXPENSES WERE HIGHLY INFLATED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD BANK CHARGES AND INTEREST, CONFERENCE AND MEMBERSHIP FEE, CHARITY AND DONATION ETC. 2. WHETHER LD. CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 26,07,959/ - WHEN CREDITOR SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT GENUINE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING O F THE APPEAL. 3. APROPOS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,96,519 / - 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF TRAVEL AGENCY . TO DO THE SAID BUSINESS HE HAD TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS NAMELY M/S. COSMOS TRAVELS & TOURS AND M/ S. SINO COSMOS TRAVEL SERVICES ; AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.09.2008 ; DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 49,83,262/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM BUSINESS / PROFESSION, HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH MAIN LY INCLUDE D BANK CHARGES AND OTHER INTEREST. THE PAGE NO. 2 ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN INFLATED EXPENSES OF RS. 10,66,386/ - IN THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE M/S. COSMOS TRAVEL & TOURS WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A DEFUNCT CONCERN. SO, ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS WISDOM, HAS DISALLOWED 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSE S WHICH AMOUNTS TO RS. 2,56,622/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD OF CHARITY & DONATION AND LOSS ON SALE OF INV ESTMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,897, SO A TOTAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THESE DISALLOWANCE S CAME UP TO A TOTAL RS. 2,96,519 (RS. 2,56,622 + RS. 24,000 + RS. 15,697) . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DISALLOWANCE THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) , WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND DELETED THE SAID AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 25% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OTHER EXPENSES AS STATED ABOVE . AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2, 96,519/ - THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 6. THE LD DR RELIED U PON THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENTED THAT LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,96,519/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SO ACCORDING TO THE LD DR, WHEN THE EXPENSES WERE HIGHLY INFLATED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD BANK CHARGES AND INT EREST ETC. THE AO RIGHTLY DISALLOWED 25% OF THE EXPENDITURE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING THE BUSINESS OF A TRAVEL AGENCY WITH TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS , NAMELY , M/S. COSMOS TRAVELS & TOURS AND M/S SINO C OSMOS TRAVEL SERVICES. ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE BY SEPARATELY COMPARING THE TURNOVER AND EXPENSES OF THE TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH EACH OTHER. THE LD AR CONTENTED THAT THE LD ASS ESSING OFFICER TURNED A BLIND EYE TO THE FACT THAT THOUGH THERE WERE TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE; FACT WAS THAT BOTH THE CONCERNS DEALT WITH THE SAME BUSINESS I.E . TRAVEL AGENCY AND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF BOTH WERE ALSO THE SAME ; AND BOTH T HE CONCERNS WERE BEING RUN FROM THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT ; AND BOTH UTILIZED THE SAME INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT ANY DIFFERENTIATION ; AND BOTH THE CONCERNS WERE OPERATING FROM THE SAME PREMISES AND THE EMPLOYEES WERE ALSO THE SAME FOR BOTH THE CONCERNS . HOWEVER A CCORDING TO THE LD AR, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE SAID FACTS AND DISALLOWED ON AN AD HOC BASIS 25% OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY ONE OF THE CONCERNS I.E. M/S COSMOS TRAVEL & TOURS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,56,622/; AND OTHER EXPENSES, AMOUNT ING TO TOTAL RS. 2,96,579/ - AND SUPPORTED THE DECISION OF THE LD CIT(A) . PAGE NO. 3 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. 8. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER COMPAR ING BOTH THE CONCERNS EXPENDITURE FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS. 10,66,386/ - AS AGAINST INCOME RECEIPT OF RS. 2,35,837 / - IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE M/S. COSMOS TRAVELS AND TOURS (HEREINAFTER CTT ) WHEREAS M/S SINO COSMOS TRAVEL SERVICES (HEREINAFTER SCTS) WHICH IS DOING THE SAME BUSINESS AND WHICH IS DOING SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS HAS AN INCOME RECEIPT OF RS. 69,19,495/ - . THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER POINT S OUT FEW INSTANCES WHEREIN THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE CTT WAS QUITE HIGH WHEN COMPARED WITH THAT OF SCTS AND HAS BROUGHT OUT THAT AN AUDITOR FEE OF RS. 37,280/ - HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN CTT AS COMPARED TO THE AUDITOR FEE OF RS. 16,854/ - IN SCTS ; LIKEWISE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED THE BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF BOTH THE CONCERNS AND POINT OUT THAT RS. 1,62,286/ - HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN CTT WHEREAS ONLY RS. 46,975/ - HAS BEEN DEBITED IN SCTS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME SHOWN IN P&L ACCOUNT OF CTT IS ONLY 3% OF THE INCOME SHOWN IN P&L ACCOUNT OF SCTS. THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDES THAT IN VIEW OF THE DORMANT CONDITION OF THE BUSINESS OF CTT TH E EXPENSES ARE HIGHLY INFLATED AND WRONGLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVES THAT CTT WAS INCURRING INFLATED EXPENSES WHEREAS THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE HANDS OF SCTS WERE FAR LESS. THEREFORE, ON AN A D - HOC BASIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 25% WHI CH AMOUNTED TO RS. 2,56,622/ - ; AS WELL AS HE DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD CHARITY AND DONATION AND ON LOSS OF SALE OF INVESTMENT TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,89 7/ - WAS ALSO DISALLOWED . THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDS THIS DISALLOWANCE WHICH COMES TO RS. 2,96,519/ - . 10. THE LD CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , FINDS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND A PROPRIETOR , DOING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF TWO CONCERNS NAMELY M/S COSMOS TRAVELS AND TOURS AND M/S. SINO COSMOS TRAVEL SERVICES. T HE LD CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE BUSINESS OF BOTH THE CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NEITHER DIFFERENT NOR IT INCURS ANY SEP ARATE EXPENSES. THE LD CIT(A) NOTES THAT ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR THE COMMON BUSINESS OF I N BOUND TOURISM AND FOR RUNNING BOTH TRAVEL AGENC IES . THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY COMPARED THE EXPENSES BETWEE N THE TWO CONCERNS MANAGED AND OWNED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISINTEGRATE D THE ASSESSEE INTO THE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES PAGE NO. 4 IN STEAD OF TREATING IT AS ONE INTEGRATED BUSINESS . THE LD CIT(A) ALSO FINDS TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFLECT THE AMOUNTS AGAINST EACH ITEM THAT HE INTENDED TO DISALLOW NOR HAS HE MENTIONED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED OUT OF WHICH 25% OF THE EXPENSES WAS DISALLOWED. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MENTION ANY DEFECT EITHER FROM THE BILLS OR VOUCHERS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF BANK AND INTEREST CHARGES WERE DISALLOWED. THE LD CIT(A) MAKES A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEALT WITH THIS ADDITION WITHO UT ANY BASIS OR EVIDENCE AND ON THE SAID FINDING HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF TWO CONCERNS AND BOTH THE CONCERNS WERE FUNCTION ING FROM THE SAME PREMISES AND WERE DOING THE SAME BUSINESS AND THE EMPLOYEES WERE THE SAME FOR BOTH THE CONCERNS. THEREFORE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE S RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE HE INCURRED ARE FROM ONE SOURCE ONLY. THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT T HAT THE PROPRIETORSHIP IS A TYPE OF BUSINESS ENTITY THAT IS OWNED AND RUN BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL AND THERE IS NO LEGAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE BUSINESS. THE PROPRIETOR RECEIVES ALL PROFITS AND HAS UNLIMITED RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL LOSSES AND D EBTS. EVERY ASSET OF THE BUSINESS IS OWNED BY THE PROPRIETOR AND ALL DEBTS OF THE BUSINESS ARE THE PROPRIETORS. IN THIS CASE ALSO BOTH THE CONCERNS M/S COSMOS TRAVELS AND TOURS AND M/S. SINO COSMOS TRAVEL SERVICES ARE BOTH OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE IN COME WHICH IS RECEIVED FROM BOTH THE CONCERNS ARE INCLUDED IN HIS INCOME AND SIMILAR LY EXPENSES OF BOTH THE CONCERNS ARE DEBITED FROM HIS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE SAID FACTUAL ASPECT AND MADE THE MISTAKE BY COMPAR ING THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY BOTH THE CONCERNS. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY DEFECT EITHER IN THE BILLS OR VOUCHERS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH EXPENSES LIKE BANK AND INTEREST CHARGES WERE DISALLOWED TO THE TUNE O F RS. 24,200 / - AND RS.15,697 / - WAS DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON SALE OF INVESTMENT . THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD PERTAINING TO THE ACQUISITION OR SALE OF THE SAME OR ITS COMPUTATION. LD CIT(A) H AS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN THIS MATTER AND HAS RIGHTLY DEL E TED THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE WE ARE INCLINED NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE SAID ORDER OF PAGE NO. 5 THE LD CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CI T(A) ON THIS GROUND AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND FAILS. 12 . APROPOS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 26,07,858/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OUTSTANDING CREDIT TO M/S. TAJIKISTAN AIRLINES . 13 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRAVEL AGENCY, TICKETING ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN M/S. TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES AS A CREDITOR IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S COSMOS TOURS AND TRAVELS WITH CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 26,07,858/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO FILE THE CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITOR IN THIS REGARD AND THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT SINCE THERE IS A N ONGOING DISPUTE AND LITIGATION GOING ON BETWEE N THE ASSESSEE AND THE CREDITOR , THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO FILE THE CONFIRMATION FRO M M / S TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES. HOWEVER, TO PROVE THE FACT OF THE ON - GOING LITIGATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE SOLE ARBITRATORS CERTIFICATE FROM M/S. DUA ASSOCIATES & ADVOCATES, AND INFORM ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ARBITRATION AWARD IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PREFERRED BY THE M/S. TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE MATTER IS SUB - JUDICE . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 26,07,858/ - AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 14 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO ALLOW ED THE APPEAL AND DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER TH E REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 15. LD DR CONTENDED THAT RS. 26,07,858/ - HAS BEEN COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND THAT AMOUNT IS NOW IN THE ASSESSEES HAND AND THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS HIS INCOME AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R IGHTLY ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS TOTAL INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS APPOINTED AS GSA BY M/S. TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES W.E.F 10.11.2003 AND THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 26,07,858/ - WAS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED INTO THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES , WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE HIS LIABILITY WHICH AROSE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05. ACCORDING TO THE LD COUNSEL SINCE THERE WAS DISPUTE WITH THE SAID PARTY THE AMOUNT IS STILL PENDING TO BE PAID AND CANNOT BE ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME AND THEREFORE THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. PAGE NO. 6 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOTED T HE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 26,07,858/ - WAS SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF AIR TICKETS OF TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 200 4 - 05. THE LD CIT(A) FIND S THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS APPOINTED AS GSA OF THE TAJIKSTAN AIR LINES W.E.F. 10.11.2003 , AS A GSA THE ASSESSEE USED TO SELL AIR TICKET S OF TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES AND COLLECTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION FROM THE CUSTOMERS. THE AMOUNT SO COLLECTED AMOUNTING TO RS. 26,07,585/ - BY THE SALE OF TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES BELONGS TO THAT O F M/S. TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES ( SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM ) AND ACCORDING TO THE OUTCOME OF LITIGATION BETWEEN THEM . IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT THE AIRLINES HAS FILED A SUIT BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT TO RECOVER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 26,07,585/ - AND THE CASE IS STILL PENDING. 17. IN TH IS FACTUAL SCENARIO LD CIT(A) NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS LIABILITY WHICH AROSE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT WHEN THE SAID AIRLINES SUDDENLY TERMINATED THE AGENCY OF THE ASSES SEE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF REPUTATION AND FILED A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BEFORE THE SOLE ARBITRATOR. IT IS MATTER OF FACT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE THE AFORESAID SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE SAID AIRLINES , IT IS A TRADING LIABILITY WH ICH HAS NOT CEASED. IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BENEFIT OR GAIN FROM THE SAID TRANSACTION HE HAS SHOWN IT AS LIABILITY IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AS CREDITOR AND DUE TO DISPUTE WITH THE AIRLINES, THE ASSESSE E WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID AIRLINES. THE LD CIT(A) TAKES NOTE OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S DUA ASSOCIATED & ADVOCATES , WHICH CER TIFIES THAT THE SOLE ARBITRATOR ON 07.12.2006 PASSED AN ARBITRATION AWARD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,14,49,670/ - ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 9% WITH EFFECT FROM 23.09.2005 TILL THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE BY M/S. TAJIKSTAN AIRLINES. FROM THE SAID CERTIFICATE THE LD CIT(A) ALSO POINT S OUT THAT THE SAID ARBITRATION AWARD HAS BE EN CHALLENGED BY THE AIRLINES AND THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE LD CIT(A) RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT TILL THE TIME THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY THE SAID AIRLINES TO THE ASSESSEE OR VICE - VERSA THE VALUE OF THE BENEFIT WOULD NOT BE A CCRUING TO EITHER OF THE PARTIES . IF THE VALUE OF THIS BENEFIT GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IT WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE THE INCOME. THE VALUE OF THIS BENEFIT WOULD BE PAGE NO. 7 MADE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME T AX AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH BENEFIT WAS OBTAINED AND NOT OTHER WISE. 18 . WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A). IT HAS COME IN EVIDENCE THAT SAID AMOUNT WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SELLING THE SAID AIRLINES TICKET S FOR FY 2004 - 05 AND THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE AIRLINES. THEREFORE, THE SAID LIABILITY HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR SINCE THE MATTER IS SUB - JUDICE BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT. THEREFORE , THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) SUFFERS FROM NO INFIRMITY AND THE DECISION TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION IS VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 19 . IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DEVOID OF MERITS AND THEREFORE WE UPHOLD AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 20 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 . 02 . 2014 . - SD/ - - SD/ - ( G. D. AGARWAL) (A. T. VARKEY) HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 14 / 02 / 2014 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI