TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not been able to persuade the Court that an error has been committed in any of the previous AYs where the Assessee's explanation was accepted and the expenditure on development charges was treated as revenue expenditure. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is additionally persuaded to adopt the rule of consistency as explained in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ) and decline the plea of the Revenue to remand the matter to the AO for a fresh determination. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 195/2014, ITA No. 202/2014 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2015 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to him, a wrong decision in the previous AYs will not preclude the Revenue from seeking remand of the matter to the AO for re-examining the issue afresh after giving the Assessee an opportunity to provide further details. 4. Mr. M.S. Syali, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee, first referred to the order dated 23rd February, 2004 passed by the ITAT in the Assessee's own case for AY 1995-96 in which it was noted that for AY 1993-94 also the ITAT had upheld the order of the CIT (A) deleting the addition made by the AO of the development expenses. Consequently, the addition made of the said head of expenses for AY 1995-96 was also deleted. Mr. Syali also referred to a chart which showed that no disallowance of the developme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned on the basis of the details furnished that there was a benefit of enduring nature to the Assessee thereby and that, therefore, it required to be treated as a capital expenditure. 7. When the matter went before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the hearing took place on 19th and 20th September, 2011. The DRP asked for further details from the Assessee which were furnished to it on 23rd September, 2011. In its verdict dated 26th September, 2011 the DRP opined the details furnished to be cursory and vague and therefore accepted the opinion of the AO that it was a capital expenditure. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Syali the DRP did not seek any clarification or explanation from the Assessee on the details provided. In other words, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
