IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-3, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 696/Del/2015 AY: 2010-11 ITO, Ward 16(1) vs. MKP Farms P.Ltd. New Delhi D 17A, Ansal Villas Satbari, Chattarpur, Mehrauli New Delhi 110 074 PAN: AADCM 6326 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr.D.R Respondent by : None ORDER This is appeal filed by Revenue directed against order of Ld.CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi dated 29.10.2014 pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee. Sh.Anil Sharma, Ld.Sr.D.R. represented Revenue. 3. After hearing Ld.Sr.D.R. I dispose of case ex parte qua assessee on merits. 4. First Appellate Authority has at para 5.3 of his order held as follows. 5.3. reason given by AO and submission of appellant are considered. This issue has been discussed in 2 appellants own case in A.Y. 2010-11. It is concluded as below. reason given by AO and submission of appellant are considered. It is seen that, AO is not relying on original lease deed, hire agreement and service agreement, entered into between lessee and assessee company & shareholders/directors of assessee company, which has been duly signed by all three directors of essessee company. AO made addition on basis of addendum which in fact has not been signed by all three directors and also not acted upon. In letter dated 26.02.2013, tenant has clearly mentioned that no other service is received from appellant company. It can be normal business decision to get services done from other persons and not property owner which in this case is directors. Secondly, relevant income has been offered for taxation in cases of directors indicating there is no loss of revenue. In such scenario, appellant is not benefited by diverting rent receivable to directors of company. amended agreement relied by AO is not acted upon. Hence, AO has no basis to ignore original agreement and depend on some other document which is not even authenticated by supplier of document. In view of this, ground of appeal is allowed. 5. Ld.Sr.D.R. could not controvert findings of First Appellate Authority. As Ld.CIT(A) has followed his own order in assessees own case for earlier Assessment Year and as Ld.D.R. could not produce any material to demonstrate that findings of First Appellate Authority for A.YT. 2010-11 have been dislodged, I uphold finding and dismiss this appeal of Revenue. 3 6. In result appeal by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 26th September, 2016. Sd/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 26th September, 2016 Manga Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - By Order, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITO, Ward-16(1), New Delhi v. MKP Farms P.Ltd