9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20/- on account of arbitration award received from DDA by the assessee for construction 416 houses at Alaknanda and since the said award was credited in the books of account of the assessee and the award was also confirmed by single bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 3. The appellant craves to add, amend or modify the grounds of appeal at any time. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Sr. DR filed an adjournment Application dated 28.3.2017 stating therein that "the grounds of appeal need be revised to raise additional ground". But the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee strongly objected the adjournment Application of the Ld. Sr. DR and stated that the Revenue has filed the present Appeal in 2011 and has not filed any additional ground till date. He further stated that even the AO has not requested the Ld. DR to file any additional ground. Therefore, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the request of the Ld. Sr. DR is not tenable and needs to be rejected. He further stated that the issue in dispute has already been decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2003-04. Therefore, Ld. Counsel of the assessee requested that the appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Ld. CTI(A). We find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed and adjudicated the issue No. 1 vide para no. 6 at page no. 7 to 8 of the impugned order and issue no. 2 vide para no. 9 & 10 at page no. 13 to 15 of the impugned order by considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- " 6. I have gone through the order of the Assessing Officer and written submission of the appellant. In the year under consideration, appellant received arbitration awards from DDA in respect of construction of houses, at Rohini, Motia Khan and Vasant Kunj for earlier years. The only receipt on which assessment was completed was receipt of award during the year and there was no other income. Appellant was out of the contract business due to the dispute with DDA, therefore, damages so received were for loss of business and not merely loss of profit, same was capital in nature. The business of appellant was totally paralyzed. The nature of dispute under consideration is similar to dispute in AY 2003-04. Relevant extract of order of Delhi ITAT in appellant's own case for Asstt. Year 2003-04 is rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax it accordingly. As far as the disputed award of Rs. 77,73,520/-- is concerned, it was awarded by the arbitrator and the award was presented before the single bench of Delhi High Court for making it Rule of Court. It was decided in favour of the appellant. However, DDA preferred to challenge this payment before the Double Bench of Delhi High Court. During the course of assessment proceedings ,the appellant had brought this fact to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. As per the copy of order of justice H.R. Malhotra, Delhi High Court it was held that"....... Since there is no stay against the execution of the decree let this amount be paid to the decree holder subject to furnishing an affidavit to the effect that in case the judgement debtor succeeds in the appeal, this amount shall be refunded to the judgement debtor within one week after the decision of the appeal". The appellant has shown the amount of Rs. 77,73,520/- as liability in its balance sheet. It has been stated that when this matter will be decided by the same amount shall be shown in the P&L account or would be refunded to DDA as per the direction of the Court. The appellant has placed reliance on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not justified. After considering the relevant facts of case and in view of the legal proposition cited in cases relied upon by the appellant, I delete the addition of Rs. 77,73,520/ -. Once the order of award attains finality, the same shall be taken into consideration in the year of the judgement." 7.1 On going through the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), with regard to ground no. 1 relating addition of Rs. 46,37,887/- is concerned, we find that in the year under consideration, assessee received arbitration awards from DDA in respect of construction of houses, at Rohini, Motia Khan and Vasant Kunj for earlier years. The only receipt on which assessment was completed was receipt of award during the year and there was no other income. Assessee was out of the contract business due to the dispute with DDA, therefore, damages so received were for loss of business and not merely loss of profit, same was capital in nature. The business of assessee was totally paralyzed. The nature of dispute under consideration is similar to dispute in AY 2003-04. Relevant extract of order of Delhi ITAT in assessee's own case for Asstt. Year 2003-04 is reproduced as under: "There is s no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under consideration also. The order of the CIT(A) has attained finality as this was not challenged by the revenue in its appeal for the relevant Asstt. Year before Delhi ITAT. In view of this finding the Assessing Officer was directed to apportion the interest component for different Asstt. Years and tax it accordingly. 7.4 We further find that as far as the disputed award of Rs. 77,73,520/-- is concerned, it was awarded by the arbitrator and the award was presented before the single bench of Delhi High Court for making it Rule of Court. It was decided in favour of the appellant. However, DDA preferred to challenge this payment before the Double Bench of Delhi High Court. During the course of assessment proceedings ,the appellant had brought this fact to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. As per the copy of order of justice H.R. Malhotra, Delhi High Court it was held that"....... Since there is no stay against the execution of the decree let this amount be paid to the decree holder subject to furnishing an affidavit to the effect that in case the judgement debtor succeeds in the appeal, this amount shall be refunded to the judgement debtor within one week after the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
