Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Global Emerging Markets India Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 June, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: C: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 5338/Del/2012
Assessment Year 2007-08
DCIT, Circle 12(1) vs. M/s. Global Emerging Markets India Ltd.
New Delhi. B-28, Pushpanjali Farms, Bijwasan,
New Delhi - 61
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Satpal Singh, Sr. DR
Respondent by : Shri Amit Seth, CA
ORDER
PER I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The revenue has questioned first appellate order raising the issue as to whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,83,747/- made on accrual basis in respect of interest receivable on advance / ICD given to M/s. Merline Resources Pvt. Ltd.
2. At the outset of hearing the Ld. AR pointed out that under similar set of facts and on identical issue raised in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1760/D/2011 vide order dated 10.6.2011 has decided it in favour of the assessee. He referred page No. 63 to 64A of the paper book where copy of the said order dated 10.6.2011 of the Tribunal has been made available. Ld. AR submitted further that the issue is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble 2 ITA No. 5338/Del/12 Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 320 ITR 410 (Delhi) holding that the interest on loan of doubtful recovery, which was offered for some years though not received could not be assessed on accrual basis, when the assessee did not account for the same and later on entered into one time settlement with the debtor and assigned the same to the third party. The Ld. AR pointed out further that the above order dated 1.6.2011 of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITA No. 139/2012.
3. The Ld. DR on the other hand tried to justify the assessment order.
4. Having gone through the above cited order dated 10.6.2011 of the Tribunal in the case of assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 (supra),upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 22.3.2012 (supra) we find that an identical issue under similar set of facts has already been decided in favour of the assessee and upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictiona High Court. The facts in brief are that against the loss returned at Rs. 22,82,241/- assessment u/s 143(3) was framed at an income of Rs. 55,11,106/-. The additions subjected to assessed income were Rs. 77,83,747/- on account of interest income and Rs. 9,600/- on account of dividend income totaling to Rs. 77,93,347/. The same was questioned before the Ld. CIT(A) and being satisfied with the submission vide order dated 22.3.2012, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition with this finding that the interest amounting to Rs. 1,38,39,815/- was shown in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2004, 31.3.005, 31.3.2006 and 31.7.2006 3 ITA No. 5338/Del/12 under the head "current assets" and this included interest income of Rs. 51,14,815/- pertaining to financial year 2002-03 and Rs. 97,25,000/- pertaining to financial year 2003-04 represented the amount receivable from M/s. Merline Resources Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had also filed reconciliation statement of interest income explaining as to how the interest reflected under the head current assets amounting to Rs. 1,48,39,815/- was already offered to tax. After having gone through the submissions and reconciliation statement, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that amounts of Rs. 51,14,815/- pertaining to financial year 2002-03 and Rs. 97,25,000/- pertaining to financial year 2003-04 has already been offered to tax for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. With these unrebutted observations the Ld. CIT(A) , we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly come to the conclusion that the addition in question made by the AO amounts to double taxation. The Ld. CIT(A) was thus justified in directing the AO to delete the addition in question. The first appellate order being comprehensive and reasoned one is thus upheld. The ground is accordingly rejected.
5. Consequently appeal is dismissed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 31.1.2013.
sd/- sd/-
(J.S. REDDY) ( I.C. SUDHIR )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 31.1.2013
Veena
4
ITA No. 5338/Del/12
Copy of order forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR
By Order
Deputy Registrar, ITAT