PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/272/2017HC DelhiDLHC01052112201715 September 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2016, passed by the ITAT for AY 2009-10. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessee's position had been accepted by the ITAT in the two immediately preceding assessment years (AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09). For AY 2007-08, the Revenue had not challenged the ITAT's favourable order. For AY 2008-09, the Revenue chose not to appeal due to low tax effect. Given this consistent favourable treatment for the Assessee in prior years, the Court concluded that there was no basis to disturb the ITAT's decision for AY 2009-10. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi) is in appeal before the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. For AY 2007-08, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed prior period expenses, which was upheld by the CIT(A), but the Assessee (National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd.) succeeded before the ITAT, and the Revenue did not challenge this order. For AY 2008-09, the Revenue did not file an appeal against the ITAT's order in favour of the Assessee due to low tax effect. The High Court noted that the Assessee's stand was accepted in the two preceding assessment years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the ITAT's order for AY 2009-10, given the Assessee's success in the two preceding assessment years on similar grounds. Assessee's Contention: The Assessee's stand on prior period expenses was accepted by the ITAT for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09, with the Revenue not challenging the former and not appealing the latter due to low tax effect. This establishes a consistent position in favour of the Assessee for consecutive years. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, pointed out the factual history of the preceding assessment years, indicating that the ITAT's order for AY 2007-08 was not challenged, and for AY 2008-09, no appeal was filed due to low tax effect. The Revenue did not present any arguments against the merits of the ITAT's decision for AY 2009-10.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 272/2017 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3 + ITA 272/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel

versus

NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Agarwal, Ms Monika Ghai and Ms. Shyamalima Borah, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

15.09.2017

1.

It is pointed by Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, that for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08, although the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) had disallowed the prior period expenses, which order was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’], the Assessee succeeded before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’). That order of the ITAT was not challenged by the Revenue in appeal.

2.

Mr Jain further pointed out that, for the subsequent AY 2008-09, no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the ITAT in favour of the Assessee on account of low tax effect.

ITA 272/2017 Page 2 of 2

3.

The present appeal concerns AY 2009-10. In view the fact that the stand of the Assessee in the immediate two earlier AYs stands accepted, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 1239/Del./2014 for AY 2009-10.

4.The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 rd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →