M/S GAS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

concern. We find that Ld. CIT (A) has found that wherever the date of post dated cheque was extended, interest was being paid at 15% p.a. in cash out of books of account as was evident from the seized material, therefore, the interest on PDC to the extent of extension period was logical. Ld. CIT (A), therefore, directed the AO to re-compute the interest on PDC either on the sale consideration or additional payment to the extent of extended period of PDCs by the AO and in case the working out of the same is not possible, to re-compute the interest on PDCs after six months from the date of issue of PDCs i.e. date of sale, as six months is taken as reasonable period for giving PDC as per sale deed. The Ld. CIT(A) has above relied on the statement of Shri Chhoturam as mentioned aboe. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal – C Bench in the case of ACITv. M/s.IAG Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. [I.T.A.No.1674/Del/2013/A.Y. 2008-09 dated 31.10.2014 has upheld the findings of Ld. CIT (A) on similar circumstances in appeal by the Revenue. Which are reproduced as under: “5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused relevant material placed before us. At the outset, the ground raised by the Revenue is misconceived because learned CIT(A) has not deleted the addition of `5,06,625/- but has only directed to recalculate the interest. We have carefully gone through the order of the learned CIT(A) and also the submissions of both the parties and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). After examining the loose papers seized at the time of search at the assessee's premises, it was noticed that interest is paid on the PDCs only during the period of extension of PDCs and, therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the interest on PDCs at the time of extension of the PDCs. He has further observed that if it is not possible to work out the extension of PDCs in each case, then the Assessing Officer is directed to recomputed interest on PDCs after six months from the date of issue of the PDCs. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the Revenue that the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 5,06,625/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest on PDCs is factually incorrect and 5. ITA-1674/D/2013 & 1765/D/2013 contrary to the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed to recalculate the interest on PDCs and there was a sound logic for such direction. His direction is based on material found and seized at the time of search. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) in this regard and accordingly, we reject ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal.”