M/s. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5717/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2763 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHNA MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.5717/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 5717 /DEL/201 1 A.Y. : 200 0 - 0 1 M/S HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HUDCO), HUDCO BHAWAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110003 (PAN: AAACH0632A) VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. KRISHNA MALHOTRA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : 15 1515 15- -- -12 1212 12- -- -201 201 201 2015 55 5 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 04 0404 04- -- -1 11 1- -- -201 201 201 2016 66 6 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU : : : : J JJ JM MM M THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31/10/2011 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- XV, NEW DELHI ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND LAW IN UPHOL DING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO ON DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10.04 LACS BEING DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. ITA NO.5717/DEL/2011 2 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, DELETE OR MODI FY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RE TURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.11.2000 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 89,03,54,208/-. ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE U/S. 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 20.3.2003 AT RS. 134,1 0,84,620/-. FURTHER ASSESSMENT U/S. 148/143(3) WAS PASSED ON 17.12.2007 , INTERALIA MAKING CERTAIN PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES DISALLOWANCES. 3. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2011 HAS DISM ISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER DATED 27/9/2012 OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL DECIDED IN THE ASSESS EES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 499/DEL/2010. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, HE FILED THE COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 27.9.2012. ACCORDINGLY, H E REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE MAY BE DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORD ERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.9.20 12 OF THIS BENCH PASSED IN ITA NO.5717/DEL/2011 3 THE CASE OF DCIT VS. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CO RPN. LTD IN ITA NO. 499/DEL/2010. THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 10 AT PAGE 5 TO 6 IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 10. IT WAS NEVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IT IS SEEN, EITHER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OFFER AN EXP LANATION, OR THAT ITS EXPLANATION HAD BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICERS STAND WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME BY MAKING A WRONG CLAIM AND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE BY ONUS OF PROOF, THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THIS STAND OF THE AO TO BE BASELESS, AS ALSO RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT (A). IN VIEW OF PARA 3 OF THE SCHEDULE U (SUPRA) (SIGNIFICANT ACC OUNTING POLICIES), ALL THE NECESSARY FACTS MATERIAL TO BE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME STOOD DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DELINEATE ANY DEFICIE NCY IN SUCH FURNISHING OF FACTS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT BEING SO, WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BE VISITE D WITH THE PENALTY WRONGLY IMPOSED. THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GO BEYOND THE RIGOR OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION, WHICH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, AS CORRECTLY FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A), AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THE ASSESSEE AMPLY DEMONSTRATED ITS EXP LANATION TO BE A BONA FIDE EXPLANATION. ALL THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE STO OD DULY DISCLOSED IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME TAX RETURN ITSEL F. THAT BEING SO, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT, BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, BE SAID TO HAVE EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF. ITA NO.5717/DEL/2011 4 8. AFTER GOING THROUGH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES, ALL RECORDS AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 27.9.2012 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE, AS AFORESAID, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE INVOLVED IN THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 2 7.9.2012 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, A S AFORESAID, WE DELETE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/1/2016. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [O.P. KANT O.P. KANT O.P. KANT O.P. KANT] ]] ] [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 04/1/2016 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES