IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member MA No. 749/Del/2017 (in ITA No. 2483/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06) Delhi Transco Ltd., Shakti Sadn, Kotla Road, New Delhi Vs DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCD6342A Assessee by : Sh. Sudesh Punhani, CA& Sh. Hemant Batra, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 01.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee arising out of the order in ITA No. 2483/Del/2013 vide order dated 30.06.2017. 2. The order in this case has been passed on 30.06.2017. The MA has been filed on 28.12.2017 wherein it was pleaded that during the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the assessee company submitted a detailed submission wherein few additional facts were highlighted which could not be submitted at the time of hearing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessee company made a request vide letter dated 06.06.2017 to admit the addition evidence as referred above for deciding the appeal. It was pleaded that while MA No. 749/Del/2017 Delhi Transco Ltd. 2 deciding the appeal, the Tribunal omitted to consider the additional evidences submitted in support of the aforesaid ground of appeal. The additional evidences submitted pertain to copy of ledger, copy of deed of undertaking, extract of day book etc. 3. We have gone through the para no. 8.5 which dealt with the issue of “amount received from NTPC on account of tariff revision”. The same reads as under: “8.5 While deciding the ground of appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.2215/Del/2013 for the assessment year under consideration, in preceding paras, we have already held that the assessee has followed mercantile system of accounting, but regarding revenue recognition, the assessee claimed to have followed accounting standards. In preceding paragraphs, after analyzing the provision of section 145(2) and section 5 of the Act, we have also held that in Mercantile system of accounting an income accrues or arise, when the assessee acquires the right to receive the same. Since in the instant case, the assessee acquired the right to receive the income on the tariff revision by the CERC and said income of Rs.60.36 crores was already received/adjusted in the year under consideration therefore, it is liable to be assessed in the year under consideration and cannot be postponed indefinitely, merely on the ground that the assessee has filed a indemnity bond. In view of above, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed.” 4. Since, the matter has been adjudicated in the merits of the issue in the fact of indemnity bond, and the system accounting has already been dealt and the matter has been considered on merit, taking into account, the mercantile system of accounting, MA No. 749/Del/2017 Delhi Transco Ltd. 3 revenue recognition and the details of tariff revision, we hold that the plea of the assessee cannot be considered u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. In the result, the MA of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31/08/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Kul Bharat) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 31/08/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR