The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Random Constructors Pvt. Ltd.,Gurgaon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 979 of 2008 (O&M)Date of decision: 28.7.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad. Vs. ......Appellant M/s Random Constructors Pvt. Ltd.,Gurgaon. ...Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT:Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant.**** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act against the order dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “F” New Delhi in ITA No.182/Del/2004for the Assessment Year 1997-98 proposing to raise the followingsubstantial questions of law:- i) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law inconfirming order of the learned CIT(A) whodeleted the addition of Rs.2,84,885/- made onaccount of shuttering expenses especially whenshuttering materials being a durable item, couldbe utilized in the subsequent financial year (s)also?” ITA No. 979 of 2008 [2] ii) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in lawin confirming order of the learned CIT(A) whodeleted the addition of Rs.50,000/-made onaccount of scrap value of shuttering materialdisregarding the fact that these items had somescrap value?" 2.The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed onaccount of shuttering expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the additions andupheld the claim of the assessee by holding that the said expensesrepresented revenue expenses. The Tribunal affirmed the said view withthe following observations: “The expenditure in question had beenincurred during the P.Y.and was revenue innature. The fact that the material could beused in the subsequent A.Y. is no ground todeny the claim for deduction. Consequently,ground No.1 raised by the Revenue isdismissed.” xx xx xx “ There is no material before the AO tocome to the conclusion that there wasincome of Rs.50,000/- on account of scrapvalue of shuttering materials. In fact thecertificate of the engineering on which AO ITA No. 979 of 2008 [3] placed reliance clearly states that thewooden shuttering material have no useafter the life time.” 3.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4.The findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal arefindings on fact. 5.No substantial question of law arises. 6.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY)July 28, 2009 JUDGEraghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No ITA No. 979 of 2008 [4] ITA No. 979 of 2008 [5]