आदशे/ORDER 

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA,VP

This bunch of four appeals filed by Revenue are against orders of CIT(A)- 6, Delhi dated 11.01.2017, 14.06.2017, 02.04.2018 and 23.10.2018 relating to assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16 respectively against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13:-

1. Whether in facts and on circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting addition of Rs. 4,68,45,000/· by ignoring a fact that above referred to addition wad made on a valid basis taking into account rate of charging lease rental and maintenance charge agreed earlier between the assessee and Devki Devi Foundation (DDF) and providing financial assistance to DDF by reducing the rate of lease rental and maintenance charge was not the purpose of the business of the assessee?

2. Whether in facts and on circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,16,266/· u/s 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) by ignoring the findings of the facts recorded by the Assessing Officer (the AO) that under unrelated party scenario no prudent business man will make supplies to another party by charging only cost and not charging incidental expenditure?

3. Whether in facts and on circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting addition and disallowance of Rs. 4,68,45,000/· and Rs. 11,16,2661· respectively by substituting his own estimate and by ignoring a fact that the estimate made by the AO was not arbitrary but was based on credible material and by disregarding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP vs. HM Esufali HM Abdulai (1973) 90 ITR 271?

4. Whether in facts and on circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in holding the decision arrival at in one assessment year by his predecessor is binding on him by ignoring that the principle of Estoppels (i.e. decision arrived at in one assessment year is not binding in subsequent assessment years) has no application to the income tax proceedings?

3. The present appeals filed by the Revenue involve similar issues; hence are being adjudicated by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, we refer to the facts and issues in ITA No.1819/Del/2017 relating to Assessment year 2012-13 to adjudicate the present bunch of appeals.

4. The first issue raised in the present appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.4,68,45,000/- made on account of rate of charging lease rentals and maintenance charges agreed earlier between the assessee and Devki Devi Foundation (in short DDF). The case of the Revenue is that by reduction in the aforesaid rate of charging lease rental and maintenance charges, the assessee was providing financial assistance to DDF and reducing the rate of lease rentals and maintenance charges was not for the purpose of business of the assessee.

5. The second issue raised in the present appeal is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 11,16,266/- under section 40A(2) of the Act by ignoring the findings of the facts recorded by the Assessing Officer.

6. Briefly in the facts of the case, the assessee company is engaged in the business of construction of hospital, leasing and sale of medical and other equipment to customers and to deal in all kinds of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, medicines and drugs. The assessee has filed return of income declaring loss of Rs.12,15,22,410/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, filed copy of supplementary agreement dated 21.02.2009 with M/s Devki Devi Foundation. The assessee company agreed to receive 8% of the share of revenue earned by Devki Devi Foundation towards leasing of medical & other equipment. Earlier this percentage was fixed at 10% vide agreement dated 10.12.2001. Similarly, vide separate a