Ita v. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.11.2011 ITA No.207 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Panchkula…Appellant Versus M/s Housing Board, Haryana…Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present :Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. M.R.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) raising following substantial question oflaw arising out of the order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short ‘theTribunal’) for the assessment year 2003-04: 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, thelearned ITAT is justified in confirming the order of theCIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.7,09,57,404/- despitethe fact that the assessee has failed to furnish theinformation/details called for by the A.O. as per earlierspecific directions of the Hon’ble ITAT on this issue? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, thelearned ITAT is justified in deleting the additions ofRs.7,09,57,404/- despite the fact that the assessee hasfailed to establish that this expenditure was an allowableexpenditure as the assessee had no legal obligation ofincurring such expenditure? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, thelearned ITAT is justified in holding that the expenditure ofRs.7,09,57,404/- is entirely relatable to the year underconsideration ignoring the fact that the relevant detailshave not been filed by the assessee before the AssessingOfficer as per its specific direction?learned ITAT is justified in holding that the expenditure ofRs.7,09,57,404/- is entirely relatable to the year underconsideration ignoring the fact that the relevant detailshave not been filed by the assessee before the AssessingOfficer as per its specific direction? Learned Tribunal has found that the amount ofRs.7,09,57,404/- was allowed as one time expenditure in view of thedecision of the Board of Directors dated 18.04.2002. The said decision wasrelatable to the present assessment year and that the decision to allow rebateby the Board of Directors was a commercial decision taken in thecircumstances of the case, where rebate was allowed to certain institutionalbodies i.e. Insurance Companies, HSIDC, HFC etc. against the advancesreceived during the years 1991 to 2002. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that theassessee has not produced any additional evidence to justify the expenditurein the relevant assessment year after the earlier order of the Tribunal dated27.02.2007 is not tenable. The documents on record prove that rebate wasallowed as one time expenditure during the relevant assessment year inpursuance of the decision of the Board of Directors. It is finding of fact.Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by thisCourt. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE