Business Park Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1768/DEL/2013 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2015 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 176820114 RSA 2013
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1768/DEL/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Business Park Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 19-03-2015
Next Hearing Date 19-03-2015
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 26-03-2013
Judgment Text
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1768 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) ITA NO.1733 - DEL - 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08) BUSINESS PARK BUILDERS PVT. LTD. M - 11 MIDDLE CIRCLE CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI PAN:AABC8672P VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 NEW DELHI 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1530 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 NEW DELHI VS. BUSINESS PARK BUILDERS PVT. LTD. M - 11 MIDDLE CIRCLE CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI PAN:AABC8672P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1740 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) ANUPAM TOWERS PVT. LTD. M - 11 MIDDLE CIRCLE CANNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI - 110001 VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1536 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 NEW DELHI - 110001 VS. ANUPAM TOWERS PVT. LTD. M - 11 MIDDLE CIRCLE CANNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1741 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. M - 11 MIDDLE CIRCLE CONNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI PAN:AABC8672P VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 NEW DELHI 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAGE 2 OF 15 ITA NO. 1535 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 NEW DELHI 110001 VS. BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. M - 11 MIDDLE CIRCLE CONNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI PAN:AABC8672P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH NASHI R ALI MOHMD CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : V.S. RASTOGI CA DATE OF HEARING 19.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 9 . 04 .2015 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BOTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - XXXIII NEW DELHI DATED 17.12.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. ONE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT TOO DATED 17.1 2.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. SINCE ALL THE ASSESSEES IN TH ESE CASE S ARE SISTER CONCERN S AND IS ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANIES OF BPTP GROUP ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ONLY THE FIGURES VARY AND BOTH SIDES AGREE THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE US BY THE AFORESAID APPEALS HA VE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERNS. THEREFORE WE ARE ONLY TAKING THE FACTS OF BUSINESS PARK BUILDERS PVT. LTD AS THE LEAD CASE AND GOING A HEAD TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL BEFORE US ONE BY ONE. ITA NO.1768/DEL/2013 (ASSESSEES APPEAL ) AND 1530/DEL/2013 (REVENUES APPEAL) ( FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07) ITA NO. 1733/DEL/2013(ASSESSEES APPEAL) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 . 2. TH ESE ARE APPEAL S PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) XXXIII NEW DELHI 110055 DATED 17.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 AND THE CROSS - APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 . SINCE THE FACTS A RE THE SAME AND THE GROUND RAISED ARE ALSO IDENTICAL WE ARE DECIDING THESE MATTERS TOGETHER TAKING THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 . PAGE 3 OF 15 3 . GROUND NO.1 2 AND 2.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 1 53C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREIN AFTER THE ACT) AND THE GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 OF APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE . THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING SO THE SAME ARE REJECTED AS SUCH. 4 . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL PRESSED BY THE LD AR ARE AS UNDER: - 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS HAVING NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY APPELLANT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN TH E HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 3.1 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RECIPIENTS WHO WERE NOT THE OWNERS OF LAND AND TO THE PAYMENT MADE IN CASH. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 4.1 THAT EVEN ON MERITS THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5 . WHILE THE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IS AS UNDER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 74 959/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IN VIO LATION OF STAMP DUTY ACT 1899. 6 . BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANY OF BPTP GROUP IN WHICH LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED MAINLY IN THE NCR (NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION). T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHASES THE LAND FROM FARMER / LAND OWNER AND TRANSFER THE SAME TO THE FLAGSHIP COMPANY OF BPTP GROUP NAMELY M/S . COUNTRY WIDE PROMOTERS (P) LTD. ( CWPPL) UNDER COLLAB ORATION AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT ; AND RECEIVES RS.35 000 / - PER ACRE FROM CWPPL WHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE THE COST OF LAND. IN PARA 3.1 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS MENTIONED THAT BPTP GROUP HAS MADE MORE THAN RS. 45.02 CRORES TO THE VENDORS OF LAND WHICH IS OV ER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THESE PAYMENTS HAS BEEN MADE MUCH AFTER THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED. ACCORDING TO THE AO DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT COMPANY MADE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF RS.1 074 959/ - AND MADE AN ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE PAGE 4 OF 1 5 ASSESSEE . THEREAFTER THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE CASH PAYMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) FOR RS.38 62 959/ - THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 7 72 592/ - . 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO WAS PLEASED TO PARTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 74 959/ - MADE BY THE AO IN VIEW OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT AND SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE BEFORE US. 8 . THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS HAVING NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY APPELLANT NO DISALLOWAN CE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE PARTIES BOTH IN CASH AND CHEQUE WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT . THUS A SUM OF EQUAL OF 20% OF RS.38 62 959/ - PAID IN CASH IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) WAS DISALLOWED AND WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.772 592/ - AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD AR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TH E ORDER OF THE CO - O RDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S GLITZ BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PVT . LTD. ITA NO.1747/DEL/2013 DATED 01.01.2015 C BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN WHICH ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON THE SAME ISSUE S I.E. DELETION OF ADDITION AL PAYMENT AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) BY THE LD CIT(A) THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED AS FOLLOWS (GROUNDS RAISED IN THE SAID APPEAL ARE ALSO IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE BEFORE US ) : - 3. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS HAVING NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY APPELLANT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APP ELLANT. 3.1 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RECIPIENTS WHO WERE NOT THE OWNERS OF LAND AND TO THE PAYMENT MADE IN CASH. 3.2 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HIMSELF QUANTIFYING THE ADDITION TO BE MADE. PAGE 5 OF 15 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIM ED BY THE APPELLANT. 4.1 THAT EVEN ON MERITS THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. WHILE THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS.13 06 377/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IN VIOLATION OF STAMP DUTY ACT 1899. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US IT IS SUBMITTED BY T HE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ACQUIRED VARIOUS LANDS FROM FARMERS/VILLAGERS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF M/S COUNTRYWIDE PROMOTERS (P) LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CWPPL). AS PER THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT B ETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND CWPPL CWPPL WAS TO DEVELOP THE LAND AND SELL IT TO THE BUYERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY ENTITLED TO CONSOLIDATED FEE OF RS.35 000/ - PER ACRE. IN PURSUANCE TO ABOVE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE LAND AND THE COST O F THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF CWPPL WHICH MADE THE PAYMENT THERE FOR. THAT IN RESPECT OF SOME LAND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT DUE TO SOME DISPUTE RAISED BY THE NEAR RELATIVES OF THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED SUCH ADDITIONAL PAYMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IS NOT ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY THE TOTAL ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF RS.13 06 377/ - WAS DISALLOWED. HE ALSO DISALLOWED THE SUM OF R S.4 59 999/ - UNDER SECTION 40A(3). ON APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3). HOWEVER IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND HE PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION: - IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT MADE TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND OR TO HIS BROTHER FATHER SONS & THEIR SPOUSES WHO HAVE GOT SOME LEGAL CLAIM OVER SUCH LAND BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE IS HEREBY ALLOWED AS AN EXPENSE U/S 37 AND ADDITIONAL PAYMENT MADE TO OTHER PAYMENTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY LEGAL RIGHT OVER THE LAND AND SIMILARLY PAYMENT MADE IN CASH TO THE OWNER OF LAND IS CONFIRMED AS THERE ARE INSTANCES OF NOT CONFORMING THE RECEIPT BY FEW SELLER AS STATED SUPRA. THEREFORE THE GROUND IS PARTLY A LLOWED. 6. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED WITH THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED UNDER SECTION 40A(3) AND PART DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IS IN APPEAL WHILE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF RELIEF ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. 7. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT ANY PAYMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CWPPL AND ANY PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND O R FOR ADDITIONAL PAYMENT HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF CWPPL. THEREFORE WHEN NO DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND OR FOR ADDITIONAL PAYMENT THE PAGE 6 OF 15 DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OR FOR ADDITIONAL PAYMENT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AND HANDED OVER THE SAME TO CWPPL. THUS IT IS A CASE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE TO CWPPL. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PASSED THE ENTRY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE LAND IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ONLY ACCOUNTED FOR THE REMUNERATION FROM THE SALE OF LAND APPLICATION OF SECTION 40A(3) CANNOT BE AVOIDED. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - BASED ON THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND FOR WHICH THE (M/S COUNTRYWIDE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.) HAS REIMBURSED ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES WITH RESPECT TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE SAID LAND AND ALSO IN CONFORMITY WI TH THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FEES CALCULATED @ RS.35 000/ - PER ACRE WHICH IS DULY CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS THE INCOME. 10. THE ABOVE FACTS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR NON - GENUINE. AS PER THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PURCHASE THE LAND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CWPPL AND WHATEVER WAS THE PURCHASE PRICE INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WAS DEBITED TO CWPPL AND THE ASSESSEE ONLY RECEIVED FIXED REMUNERATION I.E. RS.35 000/ - PER ACRE. THUS WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF COST OF THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND WHETHER ORIGINAL OR ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. WHEN T HE COST OF THE LAND AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IS NOT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION THE QUESTION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OR OTHERWISE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9 . LD A R FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF M/S. WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.1752/DEL/2013 DECIDED BY H BENCH OF ITAT DELHI DATED 22.08.2014 HE PRAYED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE U/S 37 AS NO EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED BY IT . LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S GLITZ BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE PAGE 7 OF 15 DISALLOWAN CE VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2015 SO CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT ON IDENTICAL GROU NDS FACTS WE MAY ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10 . LD DR REFERRED TO PAGE 81 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND M/S. COUNTRYSIDE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD REFERRED AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THE RECITAL THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS THE OWNER OF LAND AND ACCORDINGLY THE LAND WAS ITS STOCK - IN - TRADE. HE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT BUYING THE LAND ON BEHALF OF CPPL BUT ON ITS OWN ACCOUNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE LAND WAS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF DEVELOPER THEN THE RE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT. THUS IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT PURCHASE OF LAND BY ASSESSEE AND GIVING IT TO DEVELOPER AS PER COLLABORATION AGREEMENT ARE TWO SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE THE ENTRIES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AND MERE NON MAKING OF ENTRY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY AO. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSE D THE RECORDS OF THE CASE WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.3 3.1 4 AND 4.1 AND REVENUE GROUND NO.2 ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH AS REPRODUCED IN M/S. GLITZ BUILDERS (SUPRA). WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH THAT WHEN THE COST OF THE LAND AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION THEN THE QUESTION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OR OTHERWISE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS AFORESAID WE ALLOW GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF REVENUE. 12 . COMING TO THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 14 018/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON PDCS PAID OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. PAGE 8 OF 15 13 . APROPOS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.5 14 018/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON P DC PAID OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 14 . BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANY OF BPTP GROUP IN WHICH LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED MAINLY IN THE NCR (NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION) . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE ONLY PART PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE SELLER AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING SALE DEED AND BALANCE PAYMENT IS MADE BY WAY OF POST DATED CHEQUES (PDCS). DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE A .O. OBTAINED DETAILS OF SUCH PDCS GIVEN AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION TO THE SELLER AND OBTAINED DATE OF ENCASHMENT AND APPLIED RATE OF 15% INTEREST PER ANNUM PAID FOR THE PERIOD FROM SALE DEED TO DATE OF ENCASHMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF PDCS ON THE BASIS OF SEI ZED MATERIAL. A.O. GAVE THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT TOTAL SUCH INTEREST PAYABLE COMES TO RS.5 14 018/ - ON PDCS AND SUCH INTEREST IS PAID IN CASH OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE SUCH INTEREST IS ADDED AS UNACCOUNTED/ UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES. 15 . AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO WAS OF OPINION THAT NO INTEREST BE ADDED IF PDC ARE ENCASHED WITH IN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF IT AND HE FURTHER DIRECTED IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT T HE EXTENSION OF PDCS IN EACH CASE THEN A.0. IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE INTEREST ON P DCS AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE OF PDCS I.E. DATE OF SALE AS SIX MONTHS IS TAKEN AS REASONABLE PERIOD FOR GIVING PDC AS PER SALE DEED'. 16 . AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US . LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THAT THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE GROUNDS. 17 . LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PURSUANT TO THE SAID DIRECTION OF THE LD CIT(A) AO DID THE SAID EXER CISE AS DIRECTED AND FOUND AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT SINCE THE PDCS WERE ENCASHED BY THE SELLERS IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE ENTIRE INTEREST OF RS. 5 14 018 / - WAS DELETED . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVE RED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH DELHI IN THE CASE OF A SISTER CONCERN VIZ. M/S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. PAGE 9 OF 15 LTD DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1674/DE1L13 & 1765/DE1L13 FOR AY 2008 - 09. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF M/S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD (SUPRA) ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND BOTH COMPANIES ARE GROUP/SISTER COMPANIES. 18 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF M/ S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). THE SAID COMPANY IS A SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BELONGED TO THE SAME GROUP COMPANIES OF BPTP GROUP TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE BELONGS. IN THE SAID CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 THE IT AT BENCH 'C' NEW DELHI IN ITA NOS. 1674/D EL /2013 & 1765/DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 OBSERVED IN PARA 5 AS UNDER: '5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS MISCONCEIVED BECAUSE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5 06 625/ - BUT HAS ONLY DIRECTED TO RECA LCULATE THE INTEREST. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). AFTER EXAMINING THE LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SE ARCH AT THE ASSESSEE'S PREMISES IT WAS NOTICED THAT INTEREST IS PAID ON THE PDCS ONLY DURING THE PERIOD OF EXTENSION OF PDCS AND THEREFORE HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST ON PDCS AT THE TIME OF EXTENSION OF THE PDCS. HE HAS F URTHER OBSERVED THAT IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT THE EXTENSION OF PDCS IN EACH CASE THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE INTEREST ON PDCS AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE PDCS. THEREFORE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5 06 625/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PDCS IS FACTUAL I NCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTEREST ON CS AND THERE WAS A SOUND LOGIC FOR SUC H DIRECTION. HIS DIRECTION IS BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND ACCORDINGLY WE REJEC T GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVEN UE'S APPEAL 19 . SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO THE CASE. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORD ER DATED 31.10.2014 IN ITA NOS. 1674/DE1L2013 & 1765/DE L/ 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - PAGE 10 OF 15 09 I N THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ. M/S . IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ID. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY DO NOT SEE MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SO WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 20 . IN RESPECT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WE FIND THAT ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AND THERE IS NO CROSS - APPEAL OR CROSS - OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE AND THE LD AR PRESSED ONLY THE SAME GROUNDS AS FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006 - 07 I.E. 3 3.1 3.2 4 AND 4.1 WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. THEREFORE THE SAME ORDER ON THESE GROUNDS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 FOLLOWS. SO WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT AND THUS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IS ALLOWED. 21 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPE AL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1740/DEL/2013 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07) 22 . GROUNDS NO.1 2 AND 2.1 3 3.1 5 AND 6 ARE NOT PRESSED SO DISMISSED. 23 . GROUNDS NO.4 4.1 4.2 & 4.3 IS IN RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS U/S 37 OF THE ACT. 24 . THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD MADE A DISALLOWANCE O N RS.2 90 000 / - U/S 37 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEDUCTION OF THE PURCHASE OF LAND HAVING NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT TH E SAID CONTENTION THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. HE HOWEVER GAVE CERTAIN DIRECTIONS TO QUANTIFY THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE. AS PER THESE DIRECTIONS WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT RS.2 80 000 / - WAS ALLOWED . AND TOOK OUR ATTENTION T O IT COMPUTATION FORM (ITNS150) AT PAGE 93 - 94 OF PB ) . PAGE 11 OF 15 25 . THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD AR IS THAT HAVING NOT CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. ACCORDING TO THE LD AR SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 AND WAS PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER REFERRED TO SUPRA DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE PARA 13 (PAGE 34) BY HOLDING THUS (PAGE 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK): - (COPY OF IT AT ORDER IS AT PAGE 24 - 58 WAS REFERRED) . SINC E THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF M/ S . WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD IT WAS PRAYED THAT ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE U/ S 37 AS NO EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED MAY BE ACCEPTED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD DR REIT ERATED THE CONTENTION OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTION AT PARA 10(SUPRA). 26 . WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US WHILE ADJUDICAT ING ITA NO.1768/DEL/2013 (SUPRA) WHEREIN WHILE CONCURRING WITH THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN M/S GLITZ BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PVT . LTD. (SUPRA) ON IDENTICAL ISSUE WE HAVE HELD THAT AS UNDER: - WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.3 3.1 4 AND 4.1 IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S GLITZ BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PVT LTD (SUPRA). WE CONCUR THAT WHEN THE COST OF THE LAND AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IS NOT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION THE QUESTION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OR OTHERWISE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS AFORESAID WE ALLOW GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 27 . IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION IN SISTER CONCERN ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 28 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ITA NO. 1536 / DEL// 2013 (DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL): - 29 . GROUND NO.1 : - THIS GROUND OF REVENUE READS AS UNDER: - 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.34 52 576/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON PDCS PAID OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.' PAGE 12 OF 15 30 . THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.34 52 576/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON POST DATED CHEQUES (PDC) ISSUED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AS PART CONSIDERATION AS PER PARA 2.5 OF HER ORDER. THIS WAS THE INTEREST CALCULATED @15% P.M. ON PDCS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE (SALE DEED) TO THE DATE OF ENCASHMENT. 31 . AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF TH E AO THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO HELD IN PARA 5.4 AT PAGE 16 OF HIS ORDER: - 'IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT THE EXTENSION OF PDCS IN EACH CASE THEN A.O IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED INTEREST ON PDCS AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM DAT E OF ISSUE OF PDCS I.E. DATE OF SALE AS SIX MONTHS IS TAKEN AS REASONABLE PERIOD FOR GIVING PDC AS PER SALE DEED' 32 . THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE AFORESAID DIRECTION OF THE LD CIT(A) THE AO FOUND THAT THE PDCS IN QUESTION WERE EN - CASHED IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE SO THE ENTIRE INTEREST OF RS.34 52 576 / - WAS DELETED . COPY OF APPEAL EFFECT BY WAY OF REVISED TAX COMPUTATION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WHICH IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE 93 - 94 OF PAPER BOOK . 33 . HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE LD AR THAT THE MATTER IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF REVENUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH DELHI IN THE CASE OF A SISTER CONCERN VIZ. M / S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD DATED 31.10.2014 IN ITA NO. 16741DE1/13 & 1765IDEL/13 FOR AY 2008 - 09 . THE LD DR REITERATED THE CONTENTION OF THE AO. 34 . IN RESPECT TO REVENUES APPEAL TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON PDC WE FIND THAT THE GROUND OF REVENUE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND IT WAS ONL Y A DIRECTION OF LD CIT(A) TO AO TO RE - CALCULATE THE INTEREST ON PDCS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL SEIZED DURING SEARCH AND AS PER THE DIRECTION THE AO HAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO INTEREST PAYABLE SINCE THE PDC WERE ENCASHED BEFORE SIX MONTHS AND WE HAVE ALRE ADY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON IDENTICAL GROUND IN ITA NO.1530/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS PARK BUILDERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) SO ON IDENTICAL REASON FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S IAG PROMOTERS W E ARE INCLINED TO DI S MISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE AND MOREOVER WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN SUCH A DIRECTION OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND SO THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. PAGE 13 OF 15 35 . AS REGARDS GROUND NO . 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 10 74 9 59/ - MADE BY THE AO IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IS CONCERNED. FOR THIS ADDITION WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE ASSESSES APPEAL AS AFORESAID VIDE PARA NO . 1 1 (SUPRA) IN FAVO U R OF THE ASSESSEE HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 36 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1741 /DEL/2013 (ASSESSEE'S APPEAL) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07) 37 . GROUNDS NO S . 1 2 AND 2.1 6 AND 7 : - THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED SO IT STANDS DISMISSED. 38 . GROUNDS NO S . 4 4.1 4.2 5 AND 5.1 TH ESE GROUND S ARE AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.80 000 / - MADE U/S 40A(3) AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AND GROUND NO S . 4 4.1AND 4.2 ARE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE ON ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. THE LD AR REITERATED SIMILAR CONTENTIONS AND LD DR REITERATED THE CONTENTION AT PARA 10 (SUPRA) . 39 . WE FIND THAT SIMILAR DISALLOW ANCE WAS MADE BY AO IN THE CASE M/S GLITZ BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PVT . LTD. ITA NO.1747/DEL/2013 DATED 01 .01.2015 WHEREIN THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH DELETED THE ADDITION MADE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. 40 . ON SIMILAR GROUND IN ITA NO.1768/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S. BUSINESS PAK BUILDERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 . WE HAVE HELD AS FOLLOWS: - WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 4.1 AND 4.2 IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH. WE CONCUR THAT WHEN THE COST OF THE LAND AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IS NOT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION THE QUESTION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OR OTHERWISE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. WE THEREFOR E DELETE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS AFORESAID WE ALLOW GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 41 . SINCE THE FACTS AND GROUNDS RAISED ARE IDENTICAL THE SAME ORDER FOLLOWS AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PAGE 14 OF 15 42 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1535/DEIL2013 (DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07) 43 . GROUND NO.1 : - THIS GROUND IS AS UNDER: - 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.34 13 714/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON P DCS PAID OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.' 44 . THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.34 3 1 714/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON POST DATED CHEQUES (PDC) ISSUED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AS PART CONSIDERATION AS PER PARA 2.5 OF HER ORDER. THIS WAS THE INTEREST CALCULATED @15% P.M. ON PDCS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE (SALE DEE D) TO THE DATE OF ENCASHMENT. 45 . AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO HELD IN PARA 5.4 AT PAGE 16 OF HIS ORDER: - 'IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT THE EXTENSION OF PDCS IN EACH CASE THEN A.O IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED INTEREST ON PDCS AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE OF PDCS I.E. DATE OF SALE AS SIX MONTHS IS TAKEN AS REASONABLE PERIOD FOR GIVING PDC AS PER SALE DEED' 46 . IN PURSUANT TO THE AFORESAID DIRECTION OF THE LD CIT(A) THE AO FOUND THAT SIN CE THE PDCS WERE ENCASHED IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE ENTIRE INTEREST OF RS.34 1 3 714/ - WAS DELETED . COPY OF APPEAL EFFECT BY WAY OF REVI SED TAX COMPUTATION WAS SHOWN TO US AND IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE 103 - 104 OF PAPER BOOK . 47 . THE LD AR C ONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH DELHI IN THE CASE OF A SISTER CONCERN VIZ. M / S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD DATED 31.10.2014 IN ITA NO. IN ITA NO.1674 / DEL/13 & 1765 / DEL / 13 FOR AY 2008 - 09. (COPY ENCLOSED AT PAGES 69 - 78). 48 . IN RESPECT TO REVENUES APPEAL TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON PDC WE FIND THAT THE GROUND OF REVENUE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND IT WAS ONLY A DIRECTION OF LD CIT(A) TO AO TO RE - CALCULATE THE INTEREST ON PDCS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL SEIZED DURING SEARCH AND AS PER THE DIRECTION THE AO HAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO INTEREST PAYABLE SINCE THE PDC WERE ENCASHED BEFORE SIX MONTHS AND WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E ON IDENTICAL PAGE 15 OF 15 GROUND IN ITA NO.1530/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS PARK BUILDERS PVT. LTD. SO ON IDENTICAL REASON FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S IAG PROMOTERS W E ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THIS GROUND AND FURTHER WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN SUCH A DIRECTION OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 49 . AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATING TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 10 74 959/ - MADE BY THE AO IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. FOR THIS ADDITION WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE ASSESSES APPEAL AS AFORESAID VIDE PARA NO. 1 1 IN FAVO U R OF THE ASSESSEE HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 50 . ALL THE ASSESSEE APPEALS STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED AS AFORE - STATED AND THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 . 04.2015 . - S D / - - S D / - ( S.V.MEHROTRA ) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 9 / 04 / 2015 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI