National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

ITA 6854/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5267 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA M BISWAS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts; Corroborative evidences; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/S. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION VS. DCIT, CIRC LE 17(2), CORPORATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI. 30-31, RAJA HOUSE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 019 (PAN : AAACR6117Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADVOCATE SHRI SOMIL AGARWAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MS. PARAMITA M. BISWAS, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 24.09.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, M/S. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORD ER DATED 27.09.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - T AX (APPEALS)-37, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 3-14 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT:- ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 2 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,61, 876/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF U/S 36(2) OF INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 AND THAT TOO BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDI NG AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,61, 31,904/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED AS A PART OF PROJECT C OST BY TREATING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR LAND ACQUISITION OF ' BORDER OUT POST' DURING EXECUTION OF 'INDO BANGLADESH BORDER FENCING WORK (TBBF) AND THAT TOO WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. C1T(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. /\0 IN M AKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,61,31,904/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPE NSES INCURRED AS A PART OF PROJECT COST BY TREATING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR LAND ACQUISITION OF 'BORDER OUT POST' DURING EXECUT ION OF 'INDO BANGLADESH BORDER FENCING WORK (IBBF) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.25,07A7A0 1/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS WRITTEN BACK AND THAT TOO BY RECORDING INCOME FACTS AND FINDINGS AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MA KING ADDITION OF RS.25,07,47,401/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISI ONS WRITTEN BACK IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.25,07,47, 401/- UNDER THE MAT PROVISIONS. 7. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE UNDER RU LE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A PUB LIC SECTOR ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 3 UNDERTAKING UNDER THE MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES H AVING BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS, BRIDGES, TU NNELS, POWER HOUSES, FLYOVERS, BUILDINGS, CANALS AND OTHER INFRA STRUCTURE PROJECTS. CLIENTS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE CENTRAL AND STATE G OVERNMENT, DEPARTMENTS AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. 2. DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFIC ER (AO) NOTICED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY THAT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER EXPENSES ADMINISTRATION, A SSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEB TS WRITTEN OFF TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,61,876/-. AO FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER PASSED IN AY 2012-13 DISALLOWED DEDUCTION CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OF F ON GROUND OF ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AND MADE ADDITION THEREOF T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF R S.3,61,31,904/- BEING A CLAIM LODGED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR DE DUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER INCIDENTAL CHARGES ON WORKS. AO A GAIN BY FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER FOR AY 2012-13 DISALLOWED T HE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE AN D NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT T HESE EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVE LY FOR THE ASSESSEE. AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.25,07,47,401 /- BY WAY OF ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 4 DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS WRITTEN BACK REDUCED FRO M THE COMPUTATION UNDER MAT PROVISIONS. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING APPEAL WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE/AD DITION BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSE SSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) CONTENDED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE QUA THE GROUND RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEE N DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY FOR AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13 IN ITA NOS.102/DE L/2018 & 3652/DEL/2018 VIDE ORDERS DATED 21.06.2021 & 16.0 9.2021 RESPECTIVELY, WHICH ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE AO/CIT(A). 6. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVEN UE THOUGH RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO/LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS AND EVIDENCE, IF ANY, OR THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) HAS BEEN S ET ASIDE OR ITS OPERATION HAS BEEN STAYED BY THE HIGHER FORUM. ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 5 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 201 1-12 & 2012-13 (SUPRA) WHEREIN IDENTICAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. GROUND NO.1 8. AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,61,876/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF U/S 36 (2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT), WHICH THE LD.CIT (A) HAS UPHELD. 9. COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE FIND INGS RETURNED BY LD. CIT (A) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13 (SUPRA) DELETING THE IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE BY RETU RNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 7. THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH R ESPECT TO ALLOWABILITY OF BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF OF RS. 4,44,99 4/-. THIS ISSUE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE WRITTEN OFF OF THE BAD DEBTS . IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE EARLIER YEAR AROSE WHICH WERE DEALT WI TH BY THE COORDINATE BENCH VIDE PARA NO. 8 OF ORDER AS UNDER: - 8. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL IS WITH RESPE CT TO DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,72,49,141/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. BEFORE THE LD AO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED UNIT WISE DETAILS OF SUCH WRITE OFF ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF, IT IS TAKEN I NTO COMPUTATION OF INCOME ON EARLIER YEARS, THESE AMOUN TS ARE 10 TO 15 YEARS OLD AND AMOUNT WAS WRITTEN OFF I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM IS PROPER . THE LD AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF OLD OUTSTANDIN G DEBTS, THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. THE LD CI T(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN TRF LTD VS. CIT 323 ITR 397 HOLDING THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE ABOVE SUM, DEBTS ARE ALREADY TAKEN INTO INCOME IN EARLIER ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 6 YEARS, IT IS ALLOWABLE. NOTHING NEW WAS ARGUED BY T HE LD DR AND THE LD AR ALSO REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS BEFO RE THE LD CIT(A). WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF A DEBT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH W AS TAKEN INTO COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS, IT SATISFIED ALL THE CHARACTERISTIC OF ALLOWABLE BAD D EBT U/S 36(2) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF OF RS. 2,72,49,141/- AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL. 8. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) DELETING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.444994/-. 10. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND THERE IS NO CHANG E IN THE BUSINESS MODEL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY QUA THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIS--VIS EARLIER YEARS, WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF DEBTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS TAKEN INTO COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN EARLI ER YEARS, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT U/S 36(2) OF THE ACT. SO , GROUND NO.1 IS DETERMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS NO.2 & 3 11. AO/CIT(A) HAVE MADE/CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,61,31,904/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED AS A PART OF PROJECT COST BY TREA TING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR LAND ACQUISITION OF BORDER OUT POST DURING THE EXECUTION OF INDO BANGLADESH BORDER FEN CING WORK (IBBF). ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 7 12. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13 (SUPRA) BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 9. THE GROUND NO.3 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLO WANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LAND ACQUISITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 76,50,97,493/- AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHEREAS, THE LD AO HELD IT TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12 WHICH HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN PARA NO. 9 OF THE ORDER AS U NDER:- 9. GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 113,50,15,51/DELETED BY THE L D CIT(A) THAT WAS HELD TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BY T HE LD AO. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LD AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS. 113.50 C RORES AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE ON WORKING OF NEZ PMC. THESE EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH LAND ACQUISITION AND SERVICE CONNECTION CHARGES PAID TO TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR INDO BANGLADESH BORDER FENCING PROJECT. THE LD AO HELD THAT IT CREA TED AN ASSET AND THEREFORE IT IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CORRESPONDING INCOME AGAINST THE A BOVE PROJECT AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED AS REVENUE CONTRACT INCOME. AS THE WORK WAS AWARDED BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ASSESSEE IS MERELY A CONTRACTOR THERE I S NO CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, T HAT THERE IS NO ASSET CREATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE LD CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING, IT EXECUTED BORDER OUTPOST WORK FOR TH E MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE ON LAND ACQUISITION COMPENSATION, SERVI CE CONNECTION CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 113.50 CRORES. THIS WORK WAS CARRI ED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. AS P ER WORK ORDER (MOU) THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO ACQUI RE THE LAND FOR THE PROJECT AND EXECUTE THE CONTRACT. ALL THE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PROJECT AND CORRESPONDING INCOME OF THAT PROJECT HA S ALREADY BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSES SEE IS OF REVENUE IN NATURE AND HENCE DELETED THE DISALLOW ANCES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR, WHO ACCO RDING TO TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WAS TO ACQUIRE THE LAND, C REATE ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 8 ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE THEREON AND THEN HANDOVE R THE PROJECT AFTER EXECUTION TO MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS WITH RESPECT TO INDO BANGLADESH BORDER. THE CORRESPONDIN G REVENUE RECEIVED FOR EXECUTION OF THIS WORK WAS ALR EADY CREDITED TO THE PROJECT INCOME AMOUNT AND TAXED. TH E ACQUISITION OF LAND AND PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY CHAR GES WERE ON ACCOUNT OF ABOVE PROJECT AND IT DID NOT CRE ATE ANY ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ASSESSEE WAS MERELY A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BORDER OUTPOST ON BE HALF OF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. WE FIND THAT LD CIT(A) HA S CORRECTLY HELD THAT IN THE HANDS OF THE CONTRACTOR, ASSESSEE THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WAS MERELY PROJECT EXPENDITUR E AND HAS NOTE CREATED ANY CAPITAL ASSETS , HENCE, NOT A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED, HOLDING THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 113.50 C RORES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PROJECT IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. PAGE | 4 10. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THIS WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF TH E LD CIT(A) AND DISMISSED GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL. 13. FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL FACTS, WE HEREBY DELETE THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE GROU ND THAT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR ACQUI SITION OF LAND FOR IBBF PROJECT HAS NOT CREATED ANY ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MERELY EXECUTED A CONTR ACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BORDER OUT POST ON BEHALF OF MINIST RY OF HOME AFFAIRS. CONSEQUENTLY, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. SO, GROU NDS NO.2 & 3 ARE DETERMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 9 GROUNDS NO.4, 5 & 6 14. AO/LD. CIT (A) MADE/CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.25,07,47,401/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS WRITTEN BACK UNDER MAT PROVISIONS. 15. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2011-12 (SUPRA) BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 10. GROUND NO. 4 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 12,20,71,176/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF WR ITTEN BACK. THE LD AO MADE THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO GIVE THE INFORMATION. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ABOVE PROVISION WHICH IS WRITTEN BACK DURING THE YEAR CAN NOT BE CHARGED TO TAXED FOR THE REASON THAT THE YEAR IN WH ICH THE PROVISION WAS CREATED , IT WAS ALREADY DISALLOWED A ND IN THAT YEAR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE ABOVE PROVISION AS A LLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN T HE ORIGINAL PROVISION WAS CREATED IT WAS NOT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTI ON BUT WAS DISALLOWED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ITSELF. THE REFORE, WHEN THE ABOVE PROVISION IS WRITTEN BACK IN THIS YEAR IT CANNOT BE ONCE AGAIN CHARGED TO TAX. THE LD AO DISALLOWED THE ABOV E PROVISION. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ABOVE CLAIM WAS CONTESTED AND THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR LAST THREE YEARS WAS SHOW N WHEREIN, THE ABOVE PROVISION WAS DISALLOWED. THE LD CIT(A) A LSO EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF THE PROVISION WRITTEN BACK. THE COMP LETE DETAILS AS WELL AS THE JUSTIFICATION IS REPRODUCED AT PARA 3.3 .2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS WAS NEVER CLAIMED/ ALLOWED TO THE ASS ESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO VERIFIED THE SAME WITH RESPECT TO THE C OMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS. BEFORE US THE LD DR COULD NOT SHOW THAT THESE PROVISIONS HAVE ALREAD Y BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS AND THEREF ORE, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAXED IN THIS YEAR U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,20,71,176/- ON ACCO UNT OF PROVISION OF WRITTEN BACK. GROUND NO. 4 IS DISMISSE D. 16. AGAIN FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 10 CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SU STAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW B ECAUSE THE PROVISIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS WE RE NEVER CLAIMED OR ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH FACT HOWE VER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AO. CONSEQUENTLY, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS ORDERED TO BE DELET ED SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION BY THE AO QUA THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS IF THESE PROVISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS. CONSEQUENTLY, GRO UNDS NO.4, 5 & 6 ARE DETERMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.7 17. GROUND NO.7 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE DOES NOT RE QUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 18. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 24 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 TS ITA NO.6854/DEL./2017 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-37, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.