DCIT (LTU), New Delhi v. M/s. Rasandik Engineering Inds. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 860/DEL/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 86020114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACR3381R
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 860/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant DCIT (LTU), New Delhi
Respondent M/s. Rasandik Engineering Inds. Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 04-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 04-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 04-05-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 03-03-2010
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 860/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2001-02 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 860/DEL/2010 (A.Y. 2001-02) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S RAS ANDIK ENGG. INDS. INDIA LTD. LTU NBCC PLAZA PUSHP VIHAR C-4 & C-5 FIRST FLOOR C-BLOCK NEW DELHI - 17 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX PASCHIM MARG VASANT VIHAR NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACR 3381 R) [APPELLANT] (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJAY AGGARWAL CA. DEPARTMENT BY : MS. BANITA DEVI NAREON SR. DR PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 18.12.20 09 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LEASE RENTAL PAYMENT OF R S. 592.55 LACS TO ICICI LTD. WAS NOT IN EXCESS. ITA NO. 860/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2001-02 2 3. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY COMP LETED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2003. SUBSEQUEN TLY THE REVENUE AUDIT HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT LEASE RENTAL OF RS. 918.85 LACS INCLUSIVE OF LEASE RENTAL OF RS. 826.36 LACS PAID TO ICICI LTD. WHEREAS AS PER THE LEASE AGREEM ENT BETWEEN THE ICICI LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE LEASE RENTALS WORKED OUT TO R S. 23381566/- LEADING TO A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 5 92 54 717/-. IN THIS BACKGRO UND THE ASSESSEMENT WAS REOPENED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT COPIES OF ALL THE LEASE AGREEMENTS WERE NOT CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE SAME WERE NOT FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS AND HELD THAT HOWEVER DURING THE CURRENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MORE COPIES OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN IT AND M/S ICICI LTD. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONS IDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECORD AVAILABLE IN THIS OFFICE IN THE LIGHT OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS FORMED A COGENT BELIEF THAT INCOME OF RS. 592.55 LACS CHARGE ABLE TOT AX FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. I FIND THAT THE REASONS HAVE BEEN FORMED ON A SOUND FOOTING AND THE ADDITIO N TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS CALLED FOR ON THIS ACCOUNT. ITA NO. 860/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2001-02 3 ACCORDINGLY ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO ADD TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWANCE OF LEASE RENTALS AMOUNTING TO RS. 592.55 LACS. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF LEASE AGREEMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LEASE RENTALS HAVE BEEN PAID. COPIE S OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED. THE COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER WHICH THE LEASE RENTALS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEAR HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MORE COPIES OF AGREEMENT BEFORE HIM. HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY O N THE BASIS OF WHICH HE HAS FORMED THE OPINION THAT LEASE RENTALS OF RS. 59 2.55 LACS HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT BASED UPON ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY ADVERSE FINDING WHICH HAS BEEN BROU GHT ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. ITA NO. 860/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2001-02 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT TRANSPIRES THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT CALLED FOR ANY LEASE AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND THE ICICI LTD.. HOWEVER DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED MORE C OPIES OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN IT AND M/S ICICI LTD. NOW ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING THAT THERE IS ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE A MOUNT OF LEASE RENTAL PAYABLE AS PER THE AGREEMENTS AND THAT HAS REFLECTE D IN THAT ACCOUNT. WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC BASIS WHATSOEVER MERELY BY R EFERRING TO THE REASONS FOR THE REOPENING ASSESSING OFFICER WENT ON TO DI SALLOW THE SUM OF RS. 592.55 LACS. IN THIS REGARD LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY NOTED THAT WHEN ALL THE AGREEMENTS WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING OF DISCREPANCY IN THIS REGARD. IN THIS REGARD DETAIL OF LEASE RENTAL A LLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- A.Y. AMOUNT OF LEASE RENTAL 1998-99 2196252 2000-01 2986892 2002-03 141319521 2003-04 190232753 2004-05 189457088 2005-06 188811575 2006-07 99899380 ITA NO. 860/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2001-02 5 7. THE ABOVE DOES NOT REFLECT ANY ABNORMALITY IN TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 826.36 LACS PAID FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EARS. MOREOVER WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING OF ANY DISCREPANCY OBSER VED BETWEEN THE LEASE RENTAL PAYABLE AS PER THE AGREEMENT AND THAT SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNT NO DISALLOWANCE IS SUSTAINABLE. IT IS A NOT THE CAS E THAT ANY AMOUNT HAS ACTUALLY NOT BEING PAID OR IS OF A BOGUS NATURE. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/05/2010 U PON CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- [RAJPAL YADAV] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 04/05/2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES