Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE & SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY
PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 15/01/2016 in appeal no.
Del/CIT (A)-5/0355/2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5, Delhi (hereinafter for short referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”).
Revenue filed this appeal on the following grounds:
“That the order of the Ld.CIT (Appeals) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law.
That whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,16,125/- made
by the AO on account of undisclosed lease rent being the difference between the full lease rent as per TDS Certificate issued by the deductor and as declared by the assessee in the P&L Account. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any grounds of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing.” 2. Relevant facts are that the assessee company M/s Kumarkruppa Frontier Hotels (P) Ltd. (KFH) came into existence on 23.08.2001 in pursuance to the Government decision for disinvestment of ITDC Hotels, and Hotel Ashok, Bangalore was accordingly demerged into a separate entity M/s Kumarkruppa Frontier Hotels (P) Ltd. The Government of India decided to hand over Hotel Ashok, Bangalore and Airport Restaurant, Bangalore to M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. (BHL). Accordingly, M/s KFH and M/s BHL entered into an agreement on 29.11.2001 for rent. The assessee company is receiving lease payments from Bharat Hotels Ltd. for Hotel Ashok, Bangalore and Airport Restaurant at Bangalore. For the AY 2012-13 assessee filed return of income on 19.09.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,83,97,719/- and during scrutiny AO found that the TDS certificates issued by BHL shows the income of the assessee as Rs. 7,33,39,190/-, whereas the assessee declared the only income of Rs. 5,59,23,065/-, as such, the difference amount of Rs. 1,74,16,125/- was to be added on accrual basis. Assessee challenged the said addition of Rs.1,74,16,125/- and the Ld. CIT (A) by way of impugned order accepted the contention of the assessee that if the set off on account of discounting factor of 12% as claimed by the assessee, there would be no loss to the Revenue nor to the assessee. He also referred to the orders of his predecessors for the AY 2004-05, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 and granted relief to the assessee.
Hence, the Revenue is before us in this appeal.
3. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that in respect of assessment years 2004-05, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 the matter went up to the level of the Tribunal and a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in and batch of cases found it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, in the light of the lease agreement, confirmation of accounts from BHL and reconciliation statement.
It is further submitted by the Ld. AR that for the AY 2014-15 AO accepted the contentions of the assessee in the assessment order.
These facts are not controverted by the Ld. DR.
Having considered the contentions and also the order of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal passed on 09.02.2015 in and batch of matters, we are of the considered opinion that for this assessment year also the issue requires reconsideration by the AO in the light of the documents like lease agreement, confirmation of accounts from the BHL and the reconciliation statements etc. to be furnished by the assessee.
We, therefore, set aside the matter to the file of AO for reconsideration in the light of the orders of the coordinate bench in and batch of matters in assessee’s own case, after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce the relevant documents.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.11.2017