Millennium Plaza Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

ITA NO. 4575/Del/2013

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "E", NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4575/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2003-04 INCOME TAX OFFICER, M/S MILLENNIUM PLAZA PVT. WARD-6(4), VS. LTD., NEW DELHI 26, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI (PAN: AACCM9795M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Department by : Sh. K.K. JAISWAL, SR. D.R. Assessee by : Sh. GAUTAM JAIN, CA

Date of Hearing : 23-04-2015 Date of Order : 29-04-2015

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the

Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi dated

24.5.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2003-04 on the following

grounds:-

1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 18,00,000/-

out of building maintenance expenses merely on the

submission of assessee that maintenance income has

1 ITA NO. 4575/Del/2013

increased by Rs. 62,15,776/- thus increase in maintenance

expenditure by Rs. 65,96,688/- is justified.

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) deleted the above disallowance without providing the

AO any opportunity to rebut, as per the provision of Rule

46A, on the submission of the assessee that details were

filed during the course of assessment.

3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not

tenable on facts and in law.

4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each

other.

5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or

forgo any ground(s) of the appeal raised above at the time

of the appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was

engaged in the business of construction. The return of income for

the A.Y. 2003-04 was filed on 24.11.2003 declaring loss of Rs.

3,58,02,720/-. The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act.

Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory

notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served. The assessment was

completed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 31.3.2006 by the AO at loss

of Rs. 3,25,02,715/- making certain additions.

2

ITA NO. 4575/Del/2013

3. Against the assessment order, assesse appeal before the Ld.

CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 24.5.2013 has partly allowed

the appeal of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order, Revenue is in

appeal before the Tribunal.

5. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and

reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds of

appeal.

6. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that

the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld.

7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We

find that the ground no. 1 is related with deletion of disallowance

of Rs. 18 lakhs out of the building maintenance expenses. In this

case the AO noted that the building maintenance expenses had

increased from Rs. 1,41,80,809/- to Rs. 2,07,77,497/- in the current

year, holding that there was no justification for the increase in these

expenses and doubting the genuineness of these expenses, he

disallowed Rs. 18 lakhs and added the same to the income of the

assessee. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his impugned

order that the assessee vide its letter dated 22.5.2006 objected to

the addition to the addition stating that it was done on an adhoc

3 ITA NO. 4575/Del/2013

basis and without giving any reasons. For the sake of convenience

relevant extracts is given below:-

"Details of Building Maintenance Expenses for F.Y. 2001-02 & 2002-03

1. Building 20,777,498.00 14,180,809.00 6,596,689.00 Because Maint.

Maintenance Income is Expenses increased by Rs. 62,15,776/- So exp. Is also increase dby Rs. 65,96,689/- ."

7.1 In our view, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that an increase in the

maintenance income has resulted in the rise of expenditure. We

find considerable force in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO

has brought nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of these

expenses. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the addition of

Rs. 18 lacs cannot be sustained. In view of above discussions, we

are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the

well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the

impugned order by rejecting the issue involved in ground no. 1

raised in the appeal by Revenue.

8. With regard to ground no 2 is concerned relating to deletion of

disallowance without providing the AO any opportunity to rebut, as

per the provision of Rule 46A, on the submission of the assessee

that details were filed during the course of assessment. In our view,

the Ld. CIT(A) in his well reasoned order has not admitted any

4 ITA NO. 4575/Del/2013

additional evidence, on the issue in dispute, hence, the contention

raised by the Revenue regarding without providing the AO an

opportunity to rebut, as per the provisions of Rule 46A, has no force,

therefore, the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue is hereby

dismissed.

9. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands

dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29/4/2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[S.V. MEHROTRA] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 29/4/2015 "SRBHATNAGAR" Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

5 ITA NO. 4575/Del/2013

6