High Court Of Punjab and Haryana
CIT vs. Housing Board, Haryana
Assessment Year : 2003-04
Section : 37(1)
Hemant Gupta And G.S. Sandhawalia, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 207 Of 2011
November 14, 2011
Hemant Gupta, J – The Revenue is in appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated October 14, 2010, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short “the Tribunal”) for the assessment year 2003-04 :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,09,57,404 despite the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish the information/details called for by the Assessing Officer as per the earlier specific directions of the hon’ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on this issue ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,09,57,404 despite the fact that the assessee has failed to establish that this expenditure was an allowable expenditure as the assessee had no legal obligation of incurring such expenditure?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 7,09,57,404 is entirely relatable to the year under consideration ignoring the fact that the relevant details have not been filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as per its specific direction ?”
2. Learned Tribunal has found that the amount of Rs. 7,09,57,404 was allowed as one-time expenditure in view of the decision of the board of directors dated April 18, 2002. The said decision was relatable to the present assessment year and that the decision to allow the rebate by the board of directors was a commercial decision taken in the circumstances of the case, where the rebate was allowed to certain institutional bodies, i.e., insurance companies, HSIDC, HFC, etc., against the advances received during the years 1991 to 2002.
3. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee has not produced any additional evidence to justify the expenditure in the relevant assessment year after the earlier order of the Tribunal dated February 27, 2007, is not tenable. The documents on record prove that rebate was allowed as one-time expenditure during the relevant assessment year in pursuance of the decision of the board of directors. It is finding of fact. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court.
4. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
[Citation : 340 ITR 67]