IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 494/2013  
 . 
 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. 
 Standing Counsel with Ms. 
 Padma Priya, Jr. Standing 
 Counsel. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION LTD 
 ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     12.11.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 We are not inclined to issue notice in this appeal by Revenue under 
 Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to Assessment Year 
 2004-05, in view of failure of the Assessing Officer to discuss the 
 factual aspects. The Assessing Officer had proceeded to reopen the 
 assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only on the 
 basis of a heading given in the Balance Sheet/Profit and Loss A/c as ?prior 
 period expenses?. 
 . 
 The first appellate authority has referred to facts including the 
 treatment given in past years to ?prior period expenses?.  As per the 
 stand of the assessee, the expenses had crystallized during the years in 
 question as they were accepted by the Board as due and payable.  No 
 doubt, the appellate authorities have not discussed factual aspects, but 
 this does not undo the basic flaw in the Revenue?s case i.e. failure of 
 the Assessing Officer to advert to and state facts why addition was 
 justified in the re-assessment proceedings. 
 . 
 The appeal is dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. 
 . 
 NOVEMBER 12, 2013 
 . 
 st 
 . 
 $ 1 
 .