CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SUKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ITA 918/2015 and CM No. 29413/2015 (for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal) ITA 920/2015 and CM No. 29546/2015 (for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal) These are two appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') directed against the common order dated 20th June 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 5207 & 5208/Del/2012 for Assessment Years ('AYs') 2008-09 and 2010-11 respectively.

(2.) At the very outset, the Court would like to observe that there is an extraordinary delay of 740 days in re-filing of these appeals. The explanation offered is the standard one regarding the practise directions issued by this Court for e-filing of the appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practise directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement of e-filing. Additionally, the Court has also provided scanning machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to the bar for switching over to the system of e-filing. In any event, the delay of over two years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 740 days in re-filing the appeals.

(3.) Nevertheless the appeals have also been examined on merits. The short point urged by the Revenue in these appeals is that the lease premium paid by the Assessee to the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority ('MMRDA') on 27th December 2005 and 18th February 2008 in the total sum of Rs. 88,72,55,000 for acquiring a plot of land on an 80 year lease at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai was in the nature of a capital expense not falling within the ambit of Section 194I of the Act. While the Assessing Officer ('AO') treated it as revenue expenditure, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] reversed it and held it to be in the nature of a capital expense not requiring deduction of tax at source under Section 194I of the Act. The ITAT has in the impugned order concurred with the CIT (A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.