Case Law Details
Assessing Officer ignored the very fact that there was a temporary lull in the business of the assessee and it was not a cessation of business of activity. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses incurred by the assessee for continuation of its business which deserve to be allowed. During the argument, the AR has submitted a detail of gross receipts from AY 2004-05 to 2012-13 which reveals that except assessment year under consideration in this appeal i.e. 2009-10, the gross receipt of the assessee is of high volume during the preceding and subsequent years which clearly reveals that there was a temporary lull in the business activity of the assessee during the year under consideration in this appeal.
The detail of gross receipts has not been disputed by the DR which clearly reflects that during the subsequent years, the business of the assessee again continued and the assessee undertook substantial business activities during this period. In this situation, we are inclined to hold that there was a temporary lull during the year under consideration in the business activity of the assessee and the business activities were again started by the asessee during the subsequent years by receiving huge amounts.
In view of above, we hold that the Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed the expenses and made addition to the income of the assessee which was rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) by passing the impugned order. We are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in the impugned order. Hence, ground nos. 1 to 4 of the revenue being devoid of merits are dismissed.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `H’ NEW DELHI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
