Samtel HAL Display Systems Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6555/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7830 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D C GARG
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6555 /DEL/20 13 AY: 200 9 - 10 SAMTEL HAL DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 7(2) 501, COPIA CORPORATE SUITES NEW DELHI DISTRICT CENTRE JASOLA NEW DELHI 110 025 PAN: AAKCS 5764 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.C. GARG, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : MS. RASHMITA JHA, SR. D.R. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2013 OF LD.CIT(A) - X , NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A.Y.) 2009 - 10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) - X, NEW DELHI, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,64,911/ - MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR VARY FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI D.C.GARG, TH E LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MS.RASHMITA JHA, LD.SR.D.R. ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.6555/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SAMTEL HAL DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD., NEW DELHI 2 3. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A NIL RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.9.2009. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DRAWN UP A PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS IT HAS NOT COMMENCED BUSINESS TILL 31.3.2009. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS ACCOUNTED AS PREOPERATIVE EXPENDITURE AND WAS CAPITALIZED. WHEN NO EXPENDITURE WHATSOEVER WAS CLAIMED, THE QUESTION OF MAKING A DISALLOWANCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) DOES NOT ARISE. THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT(A), HAVE IN OUR VIEW COMMITTED AN ERROR IN DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT WHICH WAS NEVER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THUS WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH MAY, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (H.S. SIDHU) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 05 TH MAY, 2016 *MANGA ITA NO.6555/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SAMTEL HAL DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD., NEW DELHI 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR