ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Shalimar Town Planers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6344/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2232 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Document seized; Documents seized; TDS
• Section: 153A; 37(1); 153C; 37; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-23, NEW DELHI VS. M/S. SHALIMAR TOWN PLANERS PVT. LTD., M-11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI PAN :AABCS5851R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST O RDER DATED 27/07/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT T HE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,41,08,967/- AND APPELLANT BY MS. NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY SH. AJAY BHAGWANI, CA DATE OF HEARING 15.06.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.06.2021 2 ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 RS,2,96,91,956/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A .YS.2007- 08 AND2008-09 RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON P DCS PAID OUT SIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 6,80,15 ,748/-,AND RS2,96,91,956/-MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A.Y S2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ADD ITIONAL PAYMENT IN VIOLATION OF STAMP DUTYACT,1899, 3 THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF TH E HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT CONSEQUE NT TO SEARCH ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF BPTP GROUP, ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS COMPLETED ON 31/12/2009 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH ADDITIONS MADE, THE ASSESS EE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO PARTLY ALLOWED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL (IN SHORT THE TRIBUNAL) RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPROD UCED ABOVE. 3. BEFORE US, THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEOCONFER ENCING FACILITY. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH GROUNDS ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I TSELF. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL SUBMIS SION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3 ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 6. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED DELETI ON OF ADDITION OF 3,41,08,967/-, WHICH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON POST DATED CHEQUES (PDCS) PAID OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 6.1 BRIEFLY STATED FACTS QUA THE ISSUE-IN-DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BELONGS TO BPTP GROUP OF COMPANIES , WHICH ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY SH. KABUL CHAWLA. THE G ROUP COMPANIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTAT E DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATING MAINLY IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR) AREA, INCLUDING FARIDABAD, GURGAON AND NOIDA. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AT THE PREMISES OF THE BPTP GROUP COMPANIES, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. FROM T HE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND POST SEARCH INQUIRIES CONDUCTED, IT W AS OBSERVED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT BPTP GROUP COMPANIES, INCLUD ING THE ASSESSEE, HAD PURCHASED HUGE TRACT OF LAND IN DIFFE RENT VILLAGES OF FARIDABAD SUCH AS KHERIKHURD, KHERIKLAN, BUDENA, BH ATOLA ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE GROUP WAS FOLLOWING A BUSINESS MODEL UNDER WHICH ONLY A PART PAYMENT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS USED TO BE MADE AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED AND BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS INVARIABLY MADE THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES (PDC ). FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE SALE DEED AND DATE O F THE ENCASHMENT OF PDC I.E. INTERVENING PERIOD, THE ASSE SSEE USED TO PAY INTEREST IN CASH TO THE VENDORS OF THE LAND, ON MONTHLY BASIS AT THE RATE OF 1.25% PER MONTH ON THE AMOUNT OF THE PDC. THIS CASH PAYMENT, HOWEVER, HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS MENTIONED VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMEN TS ON 4 ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 PAGES 2 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDICATE INTEREST PAYMENT IN CASH ON PDC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED HUGE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF FIVE SELLERS OF THE LAND TO BPTP GROU P. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SELLERS O F THE LANDS, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SAID DIRECTION . THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY DENIED PAYMENT OF ANY INTEREST ON CASH O N PDC AND RELIED ONLY ON THE WRITTEN SALE AGREEMENTS/DEEDS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF 3,30,81,969/- FOR INTEREST ON PDC OBSERVING AS UND ER: 2.6 SO KEEPING IN VIEW THE BUSINESS MODEL/MODUS OP ERANDI OF THE BPTP GROUP AS IS CLEAR FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS PROVED BEYOND ANY IOTA OF DOUBT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS PAID CASH INTEREST TO THE VENDOR(S) ON THE AMOUNT OF PDC S @ 1.25% PER MONTH (15% PER ANNUM) OUTSIDE-THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, BY APPLYING THE RATE OF 1.25% PER MONTH ON THE AMOUNT OF PDCS FOR THE INTERVENING PERIOD I.E. FROM DATE OF SALE DEED TO D ATE OF ENCASHMENT OF PDCS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INTEREST P AID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE VENDORS AS PER ANNEXURE-PDC -INTT. IS WORKED OUT TO RS.33,081,969/-. [THE ABOVE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS COMPUTED ONLY IN RESPECT OF PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. IF IN A CASE WHERE THE SAL E DEED WAS EXECUTED DURING THE YEAR BUT THE DATE OF ENCASHMENT FALLS IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR THAN INTEREST ONLY UP TO LAST DAY OF RELEVANT, PREVIOUS YEAR IS COMPUTED BECAUSE IT IS SEEN FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT INVARIABLY THE INTEREST WAS BEING PAID IN ADVANCE O N MONTHLY BASIS. FOR THE PERIOD FALLING IN NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FOR THAT PERIOD WILL BE ADDED TO INCOME FOR THAT YE AR.] 2.7 AS PER ANNEXURE-PDC-INTT., A SUM OF RS.33,081,9 69/- HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TC THE VENDORS AS INTEREST ON PDCS ISSUED TO THEM. SINCE THIS INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY OUTSIDE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY- BEING PAID OUT OF ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HENCE, AN ADDITION OF RS.33,081,969/- IS MADE IN THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE UNDERSIGNED IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY - PAYING INTEREST TO THE VENDOR S OF THE LAND OUT 5 ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 OF ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS CONCEALED ITS INCOME AND FOR THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271_(L )(C) HAVE BEEN INITI ATED SEPARATELY. ( ADDITION OF RS.33,081,969/-) 6.2 THE SAID ADDITION WAS FURTHER INCREASED TO 4,13,41,937/- AS PER RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DATED 29/04/2010. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ANALYZED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN PARA 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THOUGH THE LD. C IT(A) HELD THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS PROVED THAT INTEREST WAS PAID ON PDCS, HOWEVER, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPU TE THE INTEREST AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE SALE AND ACCO RDINGLY, HE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIO N OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER DELETED THE ADDITION OF 3,34,75,648/-WHEREAS THE ADDITION OF 78,66,289/- WAS CONFIRMED. 6.3 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE RELIEF OF 3,34,75,648/- , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6.4 BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING FACILITY. THE ASSESSEE FILED A SYNOPSI S THROUGH EMAIL. 6.5 AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AN D ALSO FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IMPOWER INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED (ANOTHER GROUP COMPANY) IN ITA NO. 1074/DEL/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 . HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF 78,66,289 CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT LATER ON THE SAID APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN AS THE A SSESSEE OPTED FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE UNDER VIVAD SE VISWAS SCHEME. 6 ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 6.6 THE LEARNED DR THOUGH RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE DECISION S RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.7 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON TH E ISSUE- IN-DISPUTE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION OF CASH PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON PDC, HOWEVE R, HE DIRECTED TO CHARGE INTEREST FOR SIX MONTH AFTER THE SALE DEE D. THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. IMPOWER INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN SAID CASE, OBSERVING AS UNDER: 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENT ION AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON THE ISSUE O F INTEREST THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ON E OF THE GROUP CASES IN CASE OF M/S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS P RIVATE LIMITED IN ITA NO. 1674/DEL/2013 AND 1765/DEL/2013 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ORDER DAT ED 31/10/2014 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- '5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS MISCONCEIVED BECAUSE LD. C IT (A) IS NOT DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5, 06, 625 BUT HAS ONLY DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTEREST. WE HAVE CAREF ULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE SUBMIS SIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). AFTER EXAMINING THE LOOSE PAPER S SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE ASSESSEE'S PREMISES, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE INTEREST IS PAID ON THE POST DATED CHEQUES ONLY DURING THE PERIOD OF EXTENSION OF POST DATED CHEQUES AND T HEREFORE HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE INT EREST ON POST DATED CHEQUES AT THE TIME OF EXTENSION OF THE POST DATED CHEQUES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IF IT IS NOT POSS IBLE TO EXTENSION OF POST-DATED CHEQUES IN EACH CASE, THEN ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE INTEREST ON POST D ATED CHEQUES OF 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ISSUE I OF POST-DATED CHEQUES. THEREFORE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF PEACE 506625/- MACIE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON POST DA TED CHEQUES RESPECTIVELY INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT 7 ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 (A). THE CIT (A) DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTERE ST ON POST DATED CHEQUES AND WAS A SOUND LOGIC FOR SUCH DIRECT ION. HIS DIRECTION IS BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUS TIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE 'S APPEAL' 11. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT SHOW US ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE BENCH. IN V IEW OF THIS WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORD INATE BENCH, CONFIRM THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 6.8 BEFORE US ALSO, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE FAILED TO SUPPORT AS WHY THE PERIOD OF THE INTEREST UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ALSO, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA N O. 1077/DEL/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 30/05/2018 HAS DELET ED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER: ' THE ISSUE IN PRESENT CASE ALSO IS IDENTICAL AND G ROUND NO. 1 IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL. IT WAS VER Y WELL PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS USED TO PAY PART PAYMENTS OF THE S ALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE LAND PURCHASED AT T HE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE-DEED AND THE PAYMENTS OF BALA NCE SALE CONSIDERATION WERE INVARIABLY MADE THROUGH POST DAT ED CHEQUES (PDCS) AND FOR THE INTERVENING PERIOD) I.E. PERIOD BETWEEN THE DATE OF SALE DEED AND THE DATE OF ENCASHMENT OF PDCS), INTE REST WAS PAID IN CASH TO THE VENDORS OF THE LAND BY THE VENDEE COMPA NY ON MONTHLY BASIS @ 1.25% P.M. ON THE AMOUNT OF PDCS AND THIS C ASH PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE VENDEE COMPANY, WAS NOT ACCOUNTE D FOR BY IT, IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND HA S BEEN MADE IN THE SEVERAL GROUP COMPANIES OF THE BPTP GROUP DURIN G THE COURSE OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)/148/153A IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON 15/11/2007. TH US, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.9 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNA L ON THE ISSUE-IN-DISPUTE, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE-IN-DISPUTE. THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8 ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 7. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED DELETIO N OF ADDITION OF 6,80,15,748/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE STAMP DUTY ACT, 1899. 7.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 6,88,71,998/- UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUN T OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSES SEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON TH E GROUND THAT THERE BEING NO VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE ST AMP DUTY ACT AND EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1), WHICH WAS NOT APP LICABLE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DEDUCTION OF THE PURCHASE O F THE LAND WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO DISA LLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING NO VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE STAM P DUTY ACT, HOWEVER, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE DUE TO NON-CLAIM OF DED UCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE CERTAIN DIRECTIONS LIKE VERIFICATIO N OF STAMP PAPER AND COURT FEE CHARGES FOR QUANTIFICATION OF THE DIS ALLOWANCE TO BE MADE. ON THE DIRECTION OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 6,80,15,748 AND SUSTAINED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 8,56,250/-. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE RELIEF OF 6,80,15,748/- ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PART IES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ISSU E-IN-DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1077/DEL/2015 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND OTHER CASES OF THE GROU P DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 9 ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 7.3 THE LEARNED DR THOUGH RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. 7.4 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF IMPOWER INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) OBSERVING AS UNDER: 12. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITHRESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 27 LACS BEING AMOUNT PAID TO THE VARIOUS LANDOWNERS OVER AND ABOVE THE ACTUAL PRICE OF THE L AND. THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF M/S WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED IN ITA NO. 1752 /DEL/2013 DATED 22/8/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 I S IN THAT CASE SUCH ADDITION WAS DELETED. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FACT AND FURTHER MOR E THAT DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IS FURTHER FOLLOWED IN INVOLVE D IN THE CASE OF THE GROUP CONCERNS. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT BINDS US AND THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F THE COORDINATE BENCH WE ALSO DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 27 LACS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. C ONSEQUENTLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS GR OUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7.5 THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO . 1077/DEL/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND, OBSERVING AS UNDER: 'IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CATEGORI CAL FINDING THAT THE PAYMENT FOR ACQUIRING LAND CANNOT BE SAID DISBURSEM ENT OF EXPENSE OR NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENSE. IN CASE OF OWNER I.E. AS SESSEE EFFECTIVELY THE OWNER OF THE LAND IS PURCHASING THE SAME AND SE LLING ALL THE RIGHTS IN SAID LAND AT A COST OF LAND IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE PAYMENT FOR ACQUIRING LAND CANNOT BE SAID DISBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE OR NOT CLAIM ED AS EXPENSE. IN CASE OF OWNER I.E. ASSESSEE EFFECTIVELY THE OWNE R OF THE LAND IS PURCHASING THE SAME AND SELLING ALL THE RIGHTS IN S AID LAND AT A COST OF LAND PLUS RS. 35,000 PER ACRE. THEREFORE, THE CO ST OF LAND PLUS RS. 10 ITA NO.6344/DEL/2013 35,000 PER ACRE IS THE SALE COST WHICH EFFECTIVELY CLAIMED BUT DUE TO ACCOUNTING ENTRIES, SUCH TRANSACTION GETS SQUARED U P TO THE EXTENT OF COST OF LAND, AS SUCH OWNER INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTLY CREDITING RS. 35,000 PER ACRE IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT. T HUS, THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE VASUNDRA PR OMOTERS (P) LTD (SUPRA) GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DIS MISSED.' 7.6 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), THE ISSUE-IN-DISPUTE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE AND FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD. THE GROUND OF THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. THE GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON A ND ACCORDINGLY SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2021 SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH JUNE, 2021. RK/- (DTDS) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI