Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed strong reliance on the impugned order.

8. Heard. The question is as to whether as contended on behalf of the Department, the ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the CIT(A)'s order dated 01.09.2021, for assessment year 2014-15, in the assessee's own case, for deleting the disallowance. A copy of the said order of the ld. CIT(A) has been placed before us by the assessee at APB pages 89-101. As available from the said order, the assessee company had, vide Lease Deed dated 08.01.2007 (from 15.01.2007 to 31.05.2008), taken the premises situated at 1-B, Bhawani Kunj, Opposite Pocket D-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on lease from Smt. Poonam Gupta, for its Corporate Office. The said ITA 689&690/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Lease Agreement was renewed from time to time, upto 26.11.2015 (for the period from 01.12.2015 to 31.10.2016). The said premises was, thus, used by the assessee company as its corporate office from January,2007 till 30.06.2017. The lease rent paid by the assessee for the said premises was always allowed by the AO, right from Financial Year 2006-07. The assessee company stated that it had insisted to purchase the said leased premises, for which, it entered into an agreement to sell with Smt. Poonam Gupta, for a total consideration of Rs.4,55,00,000/-. It paid advance of Rs. 10 lacs on 02.09.2008 and Rs.80 lacs on 12.09.2008, aggregating to Rs.90 lacs. The balance amount of Rs.3,65,00,000/- was to be paid by 30.11.2008. However, it could not be so paid, as there was a sudden worldwide recession in 2008, which adversely affected the automobile sector in India also, because of which, Tata Motors and Ashok Leyland, the main customers of the assessee company, cancelled their orders with the assessee. Due to the adverse market conditions, the production and sales of the assessee company were badly affected in the second half of Financial Year 2008-09, relevant to assessment year 2009-10, whereas the production in assessment year 2008-09, at 839 MT, had come down to 68.012 MT in assessment year 2009-10. The ITA 689&690/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 sales turnover decreased to Rs.452.45 Cr in assessment year 2009-10, from that of Rs.467.03 Cr in assessment year 2008-09. Thereby, the assessee company incurred a loss of Rs.23.46 Cr in assessment year 2009-10, as compared to a profit of Rs.15.60 Cr in assessment year 2008-09. Before the ld. CIT(A), as available from the ld. CIT(A)'s order dated 01.09.2021, for assessment year 2014-15 (APB 89-101), the assessee furnished a copy of the aforesaid Agreement to Sell, dated 02.09.2008, and the relevant extract of the balance sheet/Profit & Loss Account for assessment year 2009-10, which also shows the figures for assessment year 2008-09. In the first half of assessment year 2009-10, the production was of 46,849 MT and the sales were of 45,726 MT. In the second half, there was production of 21,163 MT and sales of 22,118 MT. Thus, there was a total production of 68,012 MT and total sales of 67,844 MT, in assessment year 2009-10. Since the assessee was facing an acute shortage of funds in the second half of assessment year 2009-10, it could not honour its commitment to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,65,00,000/- to Smt. Poonam Gupta by 30.11.2008, the due date. As such, the assessee corresponded from time to time with Smt. Poonam Gupta for extension of time to make the said balance payment to her and the time was extended ITA 689&690/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 to 30.06.2009, subject to payment of interest @ 18% per annum for such extended period, vide letter dated 09.04.2009. The assessee placed a copy of the said letter before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee, however, could not make payment to Smt. Poonam Gupta even till 30.06.2009. Thereafter, Smt. Poonam Gupta, vide notice dated 11.07.2009, a copy whereof was also furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), terminated the Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2008 by forfeiting the advance amount of Rs.90 lacs. However, the assessee company remained to be in possession of the leased premises and continued to pay its lease rent to Smt. Poonam Gupta, as per the Lease Agreement as renewed from time to time. Subsequently, the assessee company served Smt. Poonam Gupta with a legal notice dated 01.05.2013, for recovery of the advance amount of Rs.90 lacs. A copy of this notice was placed before the ld. CIT(A). Smt. Poonam Gupta, in response to the notice, vide Cancellation Agreement dated 16.05.2013, a copy whereof was also furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), agreed to refund to the assessee the amount of Rs.90 lacs, by making upfront payment of Rs.10.50,000/- and, thereafter, paying monthly instalments, of Rs.2.30 lacs, subject to no interest being payable by her. The said ITA 689&690/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 monthly instalments were subsequently revised to Rs.3 lacs per month, w.e.f. March, 2014 and to Rs.3,30,000/- per month w.e.f. February,2015. The amount of Rs.90 lacs stood fully recovered from Smt. Poonam Gupta by the assessee, as on 10.10.2015. In this regard, a copy of the Ledger Account of Smt. Poonam Gupta, for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.10.2015, was also placed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A).