DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Degremont Project Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6533/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3962 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: VIDUR PURI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.6533/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S DEGREMONT PROJECT PVT. LTD. A-1/132, LGF, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI 110 029 (PAN: AABCD3192N) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. VIDUR PURI, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUG NED ORDER DATED 22.4.2013 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XIII, NEW D ELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL REA D AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 85,38,398/- ON ACCOUNT OF ENGINEERING EXPENSES. 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF ENGINEERING EXPENSE AT THE SITE WAS INCURRED ON CARRYING OUT THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WITHOUT EXAMINING AS TO WHETHER THIS EXPENDITURE WAS ON REVENUE ACCOUNT OR ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR ENGINEERING EXPENSES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT NO MATCHING REVENUE RECEIPT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON ACCOUNT OF ENGINEERING EXPENSES WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 3 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT D ISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HER E FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SHE MAINLY ARGUED THE GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO ADMITTING T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON ACCOUNT OF ENGINEERING EXPENSES WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. SHE REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE NEVER PR ODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND NEITHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN AN OPPOR TUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAME. HENCE, SHE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE S IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTE R GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CAS E. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE LIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT AO HA S COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN A HURRY MANNER WITHOUT GIV ING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTS AND SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIMS AND LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED 4 ORDER, HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE REVENUES APPEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE REC ORDS ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO ADMISS ION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS AN D THE FIRST TWO PARAS AT PAGE NO. 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHERE IN THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF STATED THAT IT HAD ATTACHED THE COMP LETE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF ENGINEERING A ND SITE WORKS 8538398/- AS ANNEXURE-I AND ALSO ATTACHED THE MAIN WORK ORDER AND SAMPLE COPY OF INVOICE. WE FIND THAT THE AFORESA ID DOCUMENTS WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO BY THE ASSESSEE D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NEITHER THE LD. CIT(A) HA S GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A), AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, NEEDS TO BE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER SEEKING THE COMMENTS FROM THE AO AND THEN ADMIT THE SAME, IF NECESSARY AND DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE I SSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE AFORESAID DIREC TIONS. 5 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 11/01/2018. SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 11/01/2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 6