9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 3,61,31,904/- on account of expenses incurred as a part of project cost by treating it as capital expenditure for land acquisition of 'Border out Post' during execution of 'Indo Bangladesh Border Fencing Work (TBBF) and that too without observing the principles of natural justice. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. C1T(A) in confirming the action of Ld. /\0 in making disallowance of Rs. 3,61,31,904/- on account of expenses incurred as a part of project cost by treating it as capital expenditure for land acquisition of 'Border out Post' during execution of 'Indo Bangladesh Border Fencing Work (IBBF) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 25,07A7A01/- on account of provisions written back and that too by recording income facts and findings and without observing the principles of nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) contended that identical issue qua the ground raised in the present appeal has already been decided by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee company for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.102/Del/2018 & 3652/Del/2018 vide orders dated 21.06.2021 & 16.09.2021 respectively, which order has been followed by the AO/CIT(A). 6. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue though relied upon the order passed by the AO/ld. CIT (A) has failed to bring on record distinguishable facts and evidence, if any, or that the order passed by the Tribunal (supra) has been set aside or its operation has been stayed by the higher forum. 7. We have perused the order passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 (supra) wherein identical grounds raised by the Revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier years, we are of the considered view that when the assessee has written off debts in its books of account which was taken into computation of income in earlier years, it has to be allowed as bad debt u/s 36(2) of the Act. So, ground no.1 is determined in favour of the assessee. GROUNDS NO.2 & 3 11. AO/CIT(A) have made/confirmed disallowance of Rs. 3,61,31,904/- claimed by the assessee company on account of expenses incurred as a part of project cost by treating the same as capital expenditure for land acquisition of "Border Out Post" during the execution of "Indo Bangladesh Border Fencing Work (IBBF)". 12. This issue has also been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (supra) by returning following findings :- "9. The ground No.3 is with respect to the disallowance of expenditure incurred on land acquisition amounting to Rs. 76,50,97,493/- as revenue expenditure whereas, the ld AO held it to be capital expenditure. This issue is squarely covered by the ground No. 3 of the appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dealt with in para No. 9 of the order as under:- "9. Ground No. 3 of appeal is with respect to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hands of the contractor, assessee the above expenditure was merely project expenditure and has note created any capital assets , hence, not a capital expenditure. Therefore, ground No. 3 of the appeal is dismissed, holding that expenditure of Rs. 113.50 crores incurred by the assessee on the project is revenue expenditure in the hands of the assessee." Page | 4 10. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of this we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismissed ground no. 3 of the appeal." 13. Following the order passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal on identical facts, we hereby delete the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) on the ground that expenses incurred by the assessee company for acquisition of land for IBBF Project has not created any assets in the hands of assessee as the assessee company has merely executed a contract for construction of Border Out Post on behalf of Ministry of Home Affairs. Consequently, addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is ordered to be deleted. So, grounds no.2 & 3 are determined in favour of the assessee. GROUNDS NO.4, 5 & 6 14. AO/ld. CIT (A) made/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
