Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15 challenges the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition related to short revenue recognition from an ongoing project. The CIT(A) relied on previous orders, but the Revenue argued the facts and issues were different. The assessee submitted a detailed paper book and recomputed income based on an Interim Board for Settlement order.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's technical objection regarding the submission of new documents for the first time at the appellate stage. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition without appreciating that the grounds for the assessment order differed from previous years? Whether new documents filed at the tribunal stage warrant remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer?
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2014-15 DCIT, Vs Grihapravesh Buildteck Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Anand Tower, Central Circle-2, New Delhi-110055 Grihapravesh Arcade, Plot No. GH- 03A, Sector-77, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCG6532D Assessee by : Sh. Abhay Kumar, MD Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)-22, New Delhi’s in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-22/10232/2018-19 dated 10.02.2020, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
The Revenue’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:
1. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,30,12,445/- on account of short revenue recognised from the ongoing project by considering the predecessors' orders in the case of the same assessee for the same issue for previous A.Y.'s 2012-13 & 2013-14 Grihapravesh Buildteck Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the fact that there is no applicability of the predecessors' order as while passing the assessment order, the points raised by the Ld. A0 in the present case are different from that raised in previous ones and hence the matter should be sent back to CIT(A).
2. The CIT(A) has erred in completely relying on a report by M/s Andley Associates Pvt. Ltd. which is under question by Ld. AO while passing the assessment order.
3. The CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the issue related to short revenue recognized from the ongoing project without adjudicating the issue on merits.
4. The CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the issue related to short revenue recognized from the ongoing project without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not claimed the enhanced interest cost contributing to contingency cost of land during the previous A.Y. 2013- 14.
5. The CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the issue related to short revenue recognized from the ongoing project without appreciating the fact that the assessee has claimed cost of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- for compounding for increased size despite no submissions have been made by the assessee regarding the same during assessment proceedings.
The CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the issue related to short revenue recognized from the ongoing project without appreciating the fact that the assessee has claimed cost of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- on account of green building certificate and green building compliance though the fee structure as per the website of India Green Building Council (1GBC) Green Homes indicates fee of Rs. 6,35,000/- only.”
It is at this stage that the learned counsel representing assessee has filed it’s detailed paper book running into 53 pages. He next submits that the assessee’s taxable income for the impugned assessment year already stands recomputed by the learned Assessing Officer on 25.01.2024 in furtherance to the Interim Board for Settlement VII, Chennai’s
Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative submits that the assessee has filed all these documents of the foregoing Interim Board proceedings and consequential computation for the first time in tribunal. We find prima facie merit in the Revenue’s technical objections to restore it’s instant appeal back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate factual verification in very terms. Order accordingly.