IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Airports Authority of Vs. DCIT, India, Circle-1(1), Block A, Rajiv Gandhi New Delhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi PAN: AAACA6412D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Department by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 02.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.02.2026

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 07.03.2017 in case no. 72/14- 15, involving proceedings under section 143(3)/254 of the Income-

tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. The very factual position appears to be there on the earlier hearings as well. We thus proceed ex-parte against the assessee/appellant.

2. We next note that the assessee’s instant appeal raises the following substantive grounds:

“1) That the order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) - 1, New Delhi is arbitrary, biased and bad in law and facts of the case to the extent it confirms the order of the Assessing Officer.

2) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming an addition of Rs.35,92,16,124/-(out of Rs. 50 crores made by the assessing officer) provided by the assessee for eviction, shifting and rehabilitation of illegal hutment in and around the technical area of airports.

3) Without prejudice to above ground no. 2 that the addition sustained by the Learned CIT(A) deserve to be deleted, the Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 6,54,16,124/- from out of the above addition Rs. 35,92,16,124/- for alleged want of documentary evidence in support of the claimed payment ignoring the fact that the Airports Authority of India is fully owned by the Government of India and is also subject to audit by C&AG.

3. Learned CIT(DR) next invites out attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion partly upholding the impugned disallowance/addition as under:

“7. Ground no. 3: The appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.50,00,00,000/-made by the AO on account of provision for rehabilitation by stating that provision is not an ascertained liability and the expenditure is capital in nature. Assessing Officer has discussed this issue at para 6 page 2 of the assessment order, I have considered the submission of the appellant and observation of the AO made in the assessment order. It is seen that the appellant company had made a provision of Rs.50,00,00,000/- towards expenses on eviction, shifting and rehabilitation of illegal hutments in an around the technical area of airports. Due to influx and increase in population in metropolitan cities, hutment and illegal encroachment have taken place in and around the airport area endangering the landing and take-off of the aircrafts. In the original assessments for the year under consideration, the said provision for eviction, shifting and rehabilitation was added by the AO. The appellant had contested the said addition of Rs 50,00,00,000/- before CIT(A). However, the same was upheld by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 14.04.2010. Aggrieved with the said order of CIT(A), appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 12.10.2012 vide para 9 of the said order restored the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to follow the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of appellant for the A.Y 1998-99. The Hon'ble ITAT inadvertently mentioned the para 19 and 20 of the High Court order instead of para 17 and 18 of the High Court order while directing the AO to follow the High Court direction for allowing the claim of the appellant on account of provision made for eviction, shifting and rehabilitation. The directions of the Hon'ble ITAT are as under:

"9