ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s DLF Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5916/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0321 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADEEP DINODIA R K KAPOOR CAS
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 5916(DEL)2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M/S. DLF H OUSING & CONSTRUCTION CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI. V. LT D., DLF CENTRE, 9 TH FLOOR, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-01. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI H.K. LA L, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: S/SHRI PRADEEP DINODIA &R.K. KAPOOR, CAS ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M . THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, CONTENDING THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DEL ETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. 2. THE AO OBSERVED THE LICENCE FEE PAID AT ` 72,87,513/- FOR THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM AUGUST, 2005 TO AUGUST, 2006. TH E AO COMPUTED PRO- RATA LICENCE FEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2006 TO 31 .8.2006, I.E., FOR 5 MONTHS FALLING IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, AT ` 30,36,463.75 AND DISALLOWED THE SAME AS NOT PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. ITA 5916(DEL)2010 2 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED TH AT THE AMOUNT OF ` 72,87,513/- HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE A S DEDUCTION IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME; THAT THE LICENCE FEE WAS DEB ITED TO THE STOCK OF LAND AND WAS SHOWN AS PART OF PURCHASES, AS PER SCHEDULE 14 OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS; THAT SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAD BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED BY THE AO VIDE AN ORDER PASS ED ON 26.5.2006 U/S 154 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. ON THE ASSESSEES ABOVE CONTENTION, THE LD. CIT( A) DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE RECORD AND TO DELETE THE ADDITION IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION, WAS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. 5. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. DR HAS C ONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE AMOUN T OF ` 30,36,463.75 REPRESENTED LICENCE FEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.200 6 TO 31.8.2006, I.E., FOR 5 MONTHS FALLING IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND IT DI D NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E., ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN ASSERTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` ITA 5916(DEL)2010 3 72,87,513/- HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT WAS IN VIEW OF THIS SPEC IFIC CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO VER IFY THE RECORD AND TO DELETE THE ADDITION, IT WAS FOUND TO BE CORRECT THA T THE AMOUNT HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FINDING NO MERIT THEREIN, THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.03.2011. SD/- SD/- (K.D. RANJAN) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 01.03.2011 *RM COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR