IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member &

Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 5562/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Vs Mohan Exports India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-17(1), 7, Zamrudpur Community Center, New Delhi-110002 Extn., New Delhi-110048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AAACM4168J Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 22.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)-6, Delhi’s case No.1/16-17 dated 12.06.2017, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest.

It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3. Learned CIT-DR takes us the Revenue’s following substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal:

“1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 20,25,60,179/- on account of 'notional loss’ booked on the restatement of liability & assets by ignoring the fact that during assessment proceeding the assessee could not discharge its initial onus to prove that the said loss was not of capital in nature even after providing sufficient opportunities of being heard?

2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 8,22,07,457/- on account of ‘interest paid on residential property 'by ignoring the fact that during assessment proceeding the assessee could not discharge its initial onus u/s 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) to prove that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business of the assessee even after providing sufficient opportunities of being heard?

3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in restricting disallowance of Rs. 6,06,06,535/- to Rs. 51,20,733/- on account of 'expenses incurred by directors on foreign travelling’ by ignoring the fact that during assessment proceeding the assessee could not discharge its initial onus u/s 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) to prove that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business of the assessee even after providing sufficient opportunities of being heard?

4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,67,43,627/- u/s 14A of the Act without considering legislative intend of introducing section 14A by the Finance Act 2001 as clarified by the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 10.02.2014?

5. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,67,43,627/- u/s 14A of the Act without considering a legal principle that allowability or disallowability of expenditure under the Act is not conditional upon the earning of the income as upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519?

6. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,67,43,627/- u/s 14A of the Act without considering ratio decidendi as upheld in cases of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) on application of provisions of section 14A of the Act?

7. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing relief to the assessee on the basis of earlier orders in the assessee's own case despite the fact that principle of res-judicata is not applicable to Income Tax proceedings as each assessment year is a separate proceedings year?”

4. Ms. Baljeet Kaur submits that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in reversing the assessment findings treating the assessee’s loss on account of