ITO, Faridabad v. M/s. Jagdamba Builders, Faridabad

ITA 3494/DEL/2008 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 349420114 RSA 2008
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3494/DEL/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Faridabad
Respondent M/s. Jagdamba Builders, Faridabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 15-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 15-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 15-04-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 25-11-2008
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO.3494 /DEL/08 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3494 /DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 ITO M/S JAGDAMBA BUILDERS WARD-1 (4) VISHNU PALACE AJRONDA MORE NEW DELHI. V. FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURJIT SINGH C.A. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA AM: THIS IS REVENUE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) FARIDABAD DATED 23.9.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS. 4 77 302/- ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISALL OWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N INCOME OF RS.10 73 484/- IN THE P&L A/C ON ACCOUNT OF RENT ON LY AND IN ADDITION TO THIS STANDARD DEDUCTION @ 30% HAS ALSO BEEN CLAIMED AT RS.3 22 045/- AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH IT HAS CLAIMED BUSINESS EXPENSES. . I.T.A. NO.3494/DEL/08 2/3 2. THAT THOUGH THE TAX INVOLVED IS OF RS.1 75 408/- WHICH IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT IN CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.5 OF 2008 D ATED 15.5.2008 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 268A(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 A PPEAL IS BEING FILED AS PER PARA 8(C ) OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION BECAUSE REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WHEREAS LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN ADDITION TO TH E INCOME OF RS.7 51 439/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DECLARED LOSS OF RS.4 77 302/- UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND SET OFF OF THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED A GAINST THE RENTAL INCOME AND NET INCOME OF RS.2 74 140/- WAS DECLARED IN THE RET URN OF INCOME. SUCH BUSINESS LOSS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES OF RS.4 77 302/- CLAIMED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN PROPERTY. IT IS NOTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING THIS YEAR THERE IS NO SALE AND PURCHASE. HENCE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING BUS INESS EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT (A). LD CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS T HAT IN SPITE OF THIS FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PURCHASE/SALE IN THE PRESENT YEAR THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTINUING FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS PURCHASE/S ALE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS IN THE FUTURE YEARS. 5. LD DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIA L ON RECORD TO CONTRADICT THIS FINDING OF LD CIT(A) REGARDING CONTINUITY OF T HE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. IF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONTINUING THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE ALLOWED EVEN IF THERE IS NO P URCHASE/SALE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFER E IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE SAME. . I.T.A. NO.3494/DEL/08 3/3 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE O F HEARING I.E. 15 TH APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (A.K. GARODI A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 15.4.2010. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI).