Dy.CIT Circle-11(1), Room No. 312 C.R. Building, New Delhi. Vs. M/s EL-EN India P.Ltd. 43-44, DSIDC,Scheme-III, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II New Delhi.
November, 07th 2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `B' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dy.CIT Vs. M/s EL-EN India P.
Circle-11(1), Room No. 312 Ltd. 43-44, DSIDC,
C.R. Building, Scheme-III, Okhla
New Delhi. Industrial Area, Phase-II
Revenue by:- Smt. Niddi Srivastava, Sr. DR.
Assessee by:- Sh. Vinod Kumar Garg, CA.
PER R. S. SYAL, AM.
This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order passed
by the CIT (A) on 18.01.2012 in relation to the assessment
2. First ground of the appeal is against the deletion of
addition of Rs.74,70,769/- made by the AO u/s 37 of the Act.
3. Filtering out unnecessary details, it is noticed that the AO
made this addition by relying on the view taken by him for the
immediately preceding year, that is AY 2007-08. The said AY
2007-08 came up for consideration before the Tribunal. Vide
its order dated 15.2.2013, the Tribunal in ITA No.
2675/Del/2011 has ordered for the deletion of similar addition
made for AY 2007-08. A copy of this order has been placed on
record. The relevant finding is contained in Para 11 of the
Tribunal order. In the absence of any distinguishing feature
having been pointed out by the ld. DR, respectfully following
the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this issue.
This ground is not allowed.
4. The only other effective ground is against the deletion of
addition of Rs.45 lac made by the AO on account of
unexplained cash credit. Here also both the sides are in
agreement that the facts and circumstances for the present
addition are similar to those of the preceding year inasmuch as
the AO made this addition by following the view taken by him
for AY 2007-08. The Tribunal has deleted such addition for
AY 2007-08 through the relevant discussion contained in Para
12 of the order. As the solitary basis for this addition made by
the AO was the view taken by him for AY 2007-08, which has
now been set aside by the Tribunal, we are of the considered
opinion that the impugned order requires to be upheld on this
issue. We order accordingly.
5. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/11/2013.
( RAJPAL YADAV ) (R. S. SYAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Copy forwarded to:
5. DR: ITAT
1. Draft dictated on 31-10-2013 PS
2. Draft placed before author 31-10-2013 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.