TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it – the approach of the CIT(A) on facts cannot be upheld - CIT(A) is necessarily required to look at the complete evidence necessary for arriving at a conclusion – thus, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) - assessee is granted liberty to place all necessary evidences before the CIT(A) in support of its claim as the same evidently has not been done – Decided in favour of revenue. - I.T.A .No. 1701/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2014 - Smt. Diva Singh And Sh. J. S. Reddy,JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. C. S. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Sh. R. P. Mall, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. Sameer Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER Per Diva Singh, JM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 20.01.2012 of the CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year on the following grounds:- 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,54,38,601/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of compensation charges claimed by the assessee holding the same as revenue expenditure and as such allowable as against capital expenditure held by the Assessing Officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted consisted of the following details:- Name of the Customer Date of agreement of sale Consideration received between the period Date of Revocation agreement Amount Refunded Amount Received Compensation i.e. Advance Refunded Umesh Malhotra 27.04.1988 1988-1989 1989-1990 18.07.2006 1,05,000 25,000 4,70,000 Vinod Kumar 22.02.1990 1989-1990 06.10.2006 1,27,980 43,60,490 Rastogi Vijay Sachdev Prem Sachdev Vikas Vig 30.11.1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 23.10.2006 1,80,000 1,20,000 40,000 4,32,000 Meera Mohan Sabnani Jayshree Jain 25.03.1990 1989-1990 30.06.2006 1,10,000 14,36,104 Ram Lakhman Company Jewellers Private Limited 28.06.1989 1989-1990 1990-1991 30.06.2006 1,10,000 40,000 13,09,803 Pooja Shyam Sabnani 07.09.1990 1990-1991 30.06.2006 1,50,000 13,74,247 Kunj Shyam Sabnani Meera Mohan Sabnani, GObind Khiani Kavita Khiani 08.08.1994 1991-1992 30.06.2006 2,64,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohammad Atique, jointly R/o 1177 HHH, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006. 3.4. The double booking it was submitted impacted the reputation of the builder. In view thereof one of the parties had to be paid. Apart from relying upon various decisions as per para 5.12 of the impugned order, the assessee is also found to have filed details of payment made by it as a compensation and also placed on record copies of some of the documents executed for payment of compensation and cancellation of bookings made by it. 4. Considering the arguments on facts and law the CIT(A) came to the following conclusion on facts:- 6. Determination: 6.1 I have considered the claim of the appellant and the contentions raised by it along with objections of the assessing officer in assessment order against allowability of such expenses. After examination of records placed before me, I find that no sale had been booked by the appellant in respect of bookings already made having cancelled. Such advances were received by the appellant since Financial Year 1988-1989 and were reflected in accounts as advance from customers. The amount of compensation was paid as a measure of business exigency and as a prudent bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of expense has not been disallowed by the assessing officer and thus the claim stood allowed. In so far assessments year 1999-2000 to 2000-2001 are concerned assessment were not taken up for scrutiny assessment, however the expense had been incurred in those years too. Further in assessment year 2002-2003 and 2004- 2005 the assessing officer did not disallow the expense incurred. It is only in the year 2003-2004, no such expense had been incurred. Further the method of valuation of closing stock was the cost. method which did not include the amount paid as compensation which was not treated by the appellant company as the capital cost as it represented the expenses incurred on account of commercial expediency. Thus on facts I find the submissions made by appellant as recorded in para 5.5 5.6 convincing. I further find that the appellant has shown the income from sale of aforesaid land and had shown the income without including the aforesaid sum as cost of the land sold, thus revenue neutral. 4.1. Thereafter he proceeded to address the legal precedent supporting his conclusion. 5. Aggrieved by this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR relies upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
