Anjula Goel , Parwanoo V. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

ITA 1174/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7505 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S ASHWANI KUMAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Earning of tax free income; Accommodation entries; Revised return; Penny stocks; Capital Gains; Bogus
• Section: 68; 80C; 143(3); 133A; 153A; 13; 153

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH , ! ' # $ %! , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2015-16 & 2016-17 ANJULA GOEL, PLOT NO.29, SECTOR 1, PARWANOO, HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: AARPG6041Q /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA, ADITYA KUMAR, CA BHAVESH JINDAL, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.C.CHANDRAKANTA, CIT DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 10.03.2021 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.03. 2021 (VIRTUAL COURT) / ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ABOVE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY HER AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-3, GURGAON (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A))BOTH DATED 07.06 .2019 ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 2 OF 18 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-16 AND 2016-17 RESPECTIVELY, PASSED U/S 153A(1)(B) R.W.S. 143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS A CT. 2. IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS WERE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, THEY WERE TA KEN UP TOGETHER FOR HEARING AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE SHALL BE TAKING UP FIRST THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1174/CHD/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT A SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 10-03-2016 ON THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF M/S OM SONS GROUP OF CASES, WHICH INCLUDED THE ASSESSEE . IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 6,43,630/-AFTE R CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT OF RS.1,60,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED MAKING THE FOLL OWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES: 1) ALLEGED BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS U/S 68 OF THE ACT RS.17,19 989/- 2) COMMISSION PAID FOR THE ABOVE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY RS.1,34,027/- ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 3 OF 18 3) DENIAL OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN U/S 24 OF THE ACT RS.2,00,000/- 4) DENIAL OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80C OF THE ACT RS.1,60,000/- 4. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO UPHELD ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE AND DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP I N APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON TH E FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD T HE ADDITION OF RS.17,19,989/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND RS.1,34,027/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGE D EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD T HE ADDITION PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT (A) WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO CONSIDER THE REVISED RETURN FIELD BY THE APPELLANT AFTER THE SEARCH WHICH WAS IN FACT AN INVALID RETURN. 4. THAT NO STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U /S 132(4) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE LD.CIT (A) HAS RELIED ON IRRELEVANT MATERIAL FOR CONFIRMING THE AD DITION. 5. THAT THE LD.CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT TAK ING INTO ACCOUNT THE OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME BY THE GROUP OF CONCERNS BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX STATEMENT COMMISSION DURING PROCEEDING U/S 245D(4) IN THEIR CASES. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT{A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 4 OF 18 DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,00,000/- CLAIMED U/S 24 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80C FOR RS. 1,50,000/-AND RS.10,000/- U/S.80TTA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ,1961. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEN D OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS HEARD & DISPOSED OFF. 6. GROUND NOS.2, 3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WER E NOT PRESSED BEFORE US AND THE SAME ARE THEREFORE TREATE D AS DISMISSED. 7. VIS--VIS THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 5 ,THE SAME IT W AS POINTED OUT, RELATE TO THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TREATED AS BOGU S, AMOUNTING TO RS.17,19,989/- AND THE ALLEGED EXPENDI TURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME AMOUNTING TO RS.1,34,027/. 8. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURIN G ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT INFORMATI ON HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, CHANDIGARH , FROM THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX(INVESTIGATION)-KOLKAT A ABOUT LARGE SCALE TAX EVASION IN THE FORM OF BOGUS LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES OF TH E OM ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 5 OF 18 SONS GROUP THROUGH THE USE OF PENNY STOCKS BEING SOLD/PURCHASED TO FACILITATE THESE TRANSACTIONS, WH ICH INCLUDED THE ASSESSEE ALSO .THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEE N RECEIVED ON SALE OF SHARES IN THE PENNY STOCK I.E M /S CRESSANDA SOLUTIONS LIMITED. THE AO NOTED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WING KOLKATA HAD CARRIED OUT SURVEY O PERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT IN CASE OF M/S MANU STOCK BROKI NG PVT. LTD. ON 19.04.2015, WHEREIN STATEMENT OF SHRI RITES H JAIN WAS RECORDED IN WHICH HE STATED THAT SHRI AJIT TULS IAN AND SHRI DEEPAK PATWARI WERE THE PROMOTERS OF M/S CRESA NDA SOLUTIONS LTD AND THEY WERE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING E NTRIES ON THE BASIS OF COMMISSION. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H, THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO BOGUS LTCG WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE PERSONS OF THE GROUP AUTHORIZED S HRI SUNIL GOEL FOR GIVING REPLY WITH RESPECT TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS SHOWN FROM THE SCRIPT, M/S CRESENDA SOLUTIONS . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, STATEMENT OF SHRI SUSHIL GOEL S/O SHRI OM PRAKASH GOEL WAS RECORDED U /S 132(4) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN HE ADMITTED THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD RECEIVED BOGUS CAPITAL GAINS FRO M M/S SMART CHAMP IT & INFRA P. LTD. WHICH WAS NOW MERGED WITH M/S CRESSANDA SOLUTIONS LTD. IN THE STATEMENT, ADM ISSION WAS MADE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4 .20 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE NAMES ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 6 OF 18 OF SH.GOEL AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING THE AS SESSEE, SMT. ANJULA GOEL FOR RESPECTIVE YEARS. THE ABOVE SU RRENDER WAS CONFIRMED BY OTHER FAMILY HEADS OF THE GROUP NA MELY SHRI RAKESH GOEL AND SHRI UMESH GOEL DURING THE COU RSE OF THEIR STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ON 12.03.2016 AND 07.04.2016 DURING THE OPERATION OF PROHIBITORY ORDER AT THE OFFICE OF M/S OM SONS GROU P AT PARWANOO. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 21,93,371/- FROM TRADING IN THI S SCRIP AS HER 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IN THE REVISED RETU RN OF INCOME FILED ON 28.03.2016 AND PAID TAXES THEREON. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS INCOME OF RS. 21,93,371/- IN THE RETURN FILED ON 14.08.2017 IN RE SPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE AO MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 10. BEFORE US, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAD BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE HAN DS OF M/S ROHIT TRADERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF THE GROUP AND IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER , BEFORE THE SETTL EMENT ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 7 OF 18 COMMISSION AND TAXES DULY PAID THEREON. OUR ATTENTI ON WAS DRAWN TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.23-34 BEING THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, NEW DELHI ,IN THE CASE OF M/ S ROHIT TRADERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2016-17 AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAME BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE ITS ORDER U/S 245A(4) OF THE ACT, RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH WAS PLACED BEFORE US AT P.B 48-50. OUR ATTENTION WA S SPECIFICALLY DRAWN TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO 27,POINTIN G OUT THEREFROM THE SPECIFIC SURRENDER MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SHARES, RETURNED BY THE ASSES SEE M/S ANJULA GOEL, CLAIMING THE SAME AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD BEEN ADMITTED B EFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THAT THE SAME REPRESE NTED ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE P ARTNER, BUT THE FUNDS HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY THE FIRM OUT OF ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH WAS THUS BEING SURRENDERED . THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1) AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO PARTNER DURING THE COURSE OF A/YS 2014-15, MS.ANJILA GOEL, A PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM, WHILE FILING HER INCOME TAX RETURN, DECLARED EXEMPT INCOME U/S 10(38), ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SHARES IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 8 OF 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT (RS) 2014-15 31,80,857/- 2015-16 17,89,989/- TOTAL 49,70,846/- FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE ABOVE-MENTIONED INCOME MERELY REPRESENTS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OBTAINED BY THE SAID PARTNER. HOWEVER, ALL THE FUNDS REQUIRED FOR OBTAINING THESE ENTRIES WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT FIRM TO ITS PARTNER AND ALSO REPRESENTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED BY IT. AS SUCH, THE APPLICANT FIRM IS OFFERING THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AMOUNT OF RS.49,70,846/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME VIDE THE PRESENT ST, OF FACTS. ALSO, AN AMOUNT @ 2% OF RS.49,70,846/- I.E.. RS.99,417/- TOWARDS FACILITATION CHARGES IS ALSO BEING SURRENDERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME VIDE THE PRESENT STATEMENT OF FACTS. 11. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S ROHIT TRADERS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE ITS ORDER PASSED U/S 245A(4) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, CLE ARLY THE IMPUGNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ALLEGEDLY RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY STOOD DISCLOSED AND TAXED IN T HE HANDS OF M/S ROHIT TRADERS AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) STATING THAT THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE PLEA IN THE CASE OF M/S ROHIT TRADERS THAT THE SOURCE HAVING BEEN TAXED IN ITS ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 9 OF 18 HANDS, THE PARTNERS BE NOT TAXED ON THE SAME AGAIN. OUT ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A ) AS UNDER: FURTHER, THE HON'BLE ITSC IN THEIR ORDER IN THIS GROUP CASES HAS MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AT PAGE 318 OF THE ORDER.- 'IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE CASES OF M/S OM SONS STEEL S PVT LTD, M/S OM SONS ENTERPRISES PVT LTD RADHIKA TRADER S AND ROHIT TRADERS THE APPLICANTS HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED TO TAX IN THESE CASES HAS BEEN UTILI ZED FOR CERTAIN INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE BY OTHER ENTRIES. WE REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANY COMMENT IN RESPIRE OF SUCH CLAIM OF UTIL IZATION IN THE HANDS OF ENTITIES WHO HAVE NOT FILED APPLICATIO N U/S 245D(1) OF THE ACT AND NOT COVERED IN THIS ORDER.'. THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO AMOUN T CAN BE ADDED TO INCOME WHEN SOURCE HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED WITH REGARD TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME M/S RADHIKA TRADE RS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE ITSC'S O RDER DISCUSSED ABOVE. FURTHER, THE COGNIZANCE OF REVISED RETURN FILED DECLARING LTG AS ITS INCOME AND PAYMENT OF TAXES CA NNOT BE IGNORED. THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE ACT WHICH PRO HIBITS THE AO FROM DOING SO. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153 A(L]OF THE ACT ONLY PROHIBITS THE AO TO PASS ANY ASSESSMEN T AFTER SEARCH WITH RESPECT TO PENDING ASSESSMENT AND THE A O IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 153A TO ASSESS OR REA SSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH SU CH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION WAS MADE. FURTHER, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS SUN ENGG WORKS LTD 198 ITR 297(SC), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/ S 147 ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE AND NOT FOR BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPL E, PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ASSESSEE, SO AS TO FILE A RETURN ON REDUCED INCOME, BY EXCLUDING INCOME WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED SUO MOTO AND TAXES PAID ON THE SAID INCOME, AS IN THE CASE OF TH E APPELLANT. ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 10 OF 18 THE SURRENDER OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT HA S IN FACT BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE RETURN FILED BY TH E APPELLANT AFTER RECORDING OF STATEMENT. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS ENTRIES WITH REGARD TO LTCG ON PENNY STOCKS, THE AO HAS DIS CUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HEN CE NOT REITERATED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, ADDITION OF RS. 21 ,93,371/- ON ACCOUNT OF LTCG IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS CONF IRMED. AS SIMILAR, ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT FOR AY 2 015-16 AND SMT. ANJULA GOEL FOR AY 2015-16, THE ADDITION MADE IN TH ESE CASES IS ALSO CONFIRMED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO PE RUSED THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BEFORE US. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE IMPUGNED CA PITAL GAINS HAD ALREADY BEEN SURRENDERED IN THE HANDS OF M/S ROHIT TRADERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHICH STOOD ACCEPTED. THAT TH EREFORE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF TAXING IT AGAIN IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT O F FACTS FILED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF M/S ROHIT TRADERS AND FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDOUBTEDLY THE IMPUGN ED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.17,89,989/- ALONGWITH THE FACILITATION CHARGES THEREON, STAND CATEGORICALLY SURRENDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF M/S ROHIT TRADERS ,BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. TH E ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 11 OF 18 REVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE SAID FACT. THE IMP UGNED INCOME HAVING BEEN CATEGORICALLY TAXED AS UNDISCLOS ED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES FIRM, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT SHOULD BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, WHICH WOULD ONLY RESULT IN TAXING THE SAME INCOME TWICE. 15. THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMM ISSION ON WHICH THE REVENUE HAS RELIED FOR DISMISSING ASSE SSEES CLAIM, THAT THEY REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANY COMMENT IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF UTILIZATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF M /S ROHIT TRADERS IN THE HANDS OF PARTNERS, IN OUR VIEW, ONLY SERVES THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION REFRAINING F ROM COMMENTING ON ASSESSEES WHICH WERE NOT THERE BEFOR E THEM. THIS OBSERVATION, WE FIND, DOES NOT NEGATE THE ADMI TTED AND UNDISPUTED FACT OF SURRENDER OF THE IMPUGNED CAPITA L GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE HANDS OF M/S ROHIT TRADERS. 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.17,19,989/- AND RS.1,34,027/- RESPECTIVELY. GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.1 AND 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STAND ALLOWED. ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 12 OF 18 17. GROUND NOS.6 AND 7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E US RELATE TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T PAID ON HOUSING LOAN U/S 24 OF THE ACT OF RS.2,00,000/-, AN D REPAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF HOUSING LOAN O F RS.1,50,000/- & DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EA RNED ON SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.10,000/- U/S 80C & 80TTA RESPECTIVELY. THE SAME, WE FIND, WERE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCES WERE NOT FILED. 18. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT VIS A VIS DEDUCTION CLAIMED OF INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN U/S 24 OF THE ACT AND REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN U/S 80C O F THE ACT, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD FAILED TO APPRE CIATE THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE HOUSE WAS JOINTLY OW NED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HER HUSBAND AND THE LOAN ALSO HAD BEEN JOINTLY TAKEN, BUT THE INTEREST CERTIFICATE HAD BEE N ISSUED BY THE BANK IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST OWNER, I.E THE HU SBAND OF THE ASSESSEE . HE CONTENDED THAT IT HAD ALSO BEEN P OINTED OUT THAT THE LOAN INSTALLMENTS AND INTEREST WERE AL SO BEING PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT ALL THESE FACTS HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY IGNORED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND D EDUCTION DENIED MERELY BECAUSE AS PER INTEREST CERTIFICATE L OAN WAS SANCTIONED TO THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTH ER ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 13 OF 18 CONTENDED THAT EVEN A CERTIFICATE FROM THE CONCERNE D BANK, I.E SBI HAD BEEN FILED, CLARIFYING THAT THE LEASE W AS IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND. 19. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFOR E US THAT ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES HAD BEEN FILED BO TH BEFORE THE AO AND EVEN THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE P APER BOOK AS UNDER: 1. COPY OF COMPUTATION CHART IN SUPPORT OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 24. 80C AND 80TTA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. BANK CERTIFICATE IN SUPPORT OF HOUSING LOAN BY T HE APPELLANT AS CO-OWNER FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 25.01.2019. 3. COPY OF HOUSING LOAN STATEMENT AND LEDGER ACCOUN T SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL AMOUNT TO BANK. 4. COPY OF SALE DEED IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT HO USE WAS PURCHASED JOINTLY BY THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND SH.RAKESH GOEL. 20. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED DEDUCT ION HAD, THEREFORE, BEEN WRONGLY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE . 21. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN DENIED DEDUCTION U/S 24 AND SECTION 80C OF THE ACT, OF THE ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 14 OF 18 INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN & REPAYMENT OF HOUSIN G LOAN, FOR THE REASON THAT THE INTEREST CERTIFICATE MENTIO NS THE LOAN SANCTIONED TO THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. 23. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL PRO PERTY AGAINST WHICH THE SAID DEDUCTIONS WERE CLAIMED WAS H.NO.1063, SECTOR-4 PANCHKULA. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR FILED B EFORE US AND THE SAID FACT FINDS MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER ALSO. A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF THE SAID PROPERTY, PLACED BEFORE US AT P.B 42-47, SHOWS THAT IT WAS PURCHASED IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND. THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE HOUSING LOAN AN D THE ASSESSEES CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE FIRM, M/S ROHIT TR ADERS,AT P.B 39-41 SHOW THAT LOAN WAS BEING REPAID BY HER, I NCLUDING INTEREST. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE THERE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT I N THEM. EVEN BEFORE US THE LD.DR WAS UNABLE TO POINT OUT AN Y DISCREPANCY IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS. WHAT EMERGES THE REFORE AS FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CO-OWNER OF PROPER TY ON WHICH HOUSING LOAN TAKEN WAS BEING REPAID BY HER. T HIS FACT IS CORROBORATED BY THE BANK CERTIFICATE PLACED BEFO RE US AT P.B 38, CERTIFYING HOME LOAN TO BE IN THE NAME OF T HE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HER HUSBAND. ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 15 OF 18 24. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE CONTENTION OF THE REV ENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN A ND INTEREST THEREON, MERITS NO CONSIDERATION. THE VOLU MINOUS EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS STATED ABOVE, C LEARLY EVIDENCE HER CLAIM. AND ALL THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WER E THERE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WHO WE FIND HAVE CONV ENIENTLY IGNORED THE SAME, PLACING ENTIRE THRUST ON THE INTE REST CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BANK FOR REJECTING THE AS SESSEES CLAIM. 25. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ALONGWITH THE EVIDENCES FILED, WE HOLD THAT THE ASS ESSEES HAD DULY EVIDENCED ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 24 O F INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN OF RS.2,00,000/- AND U/S 80COF REPA YMENT OF HOUSING LOAN OF RS.1,50,000/- . THE AO IS ACCORD INGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE AFORESAID CLAIMS TO THE ASSES SEE. 26. AS FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80TTA OF THE ACT RELATING TO INTEREST EARNED ON SAVING, THE SAME WAS ALSO DENIED FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE. BUT THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT WHILE THE INTEREST EARNED ON SAVINGS BANK RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ACCEPT ED AS SUCH,( REFLECTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT P. B 35-37) ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 16 OF 18 THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME HAS BE EN DENIED. 27. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDOUBTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF SAVINGS BANK INTEREST WHICH HAS BEEN S HOWN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS INCOME RETURNED IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, WE FAIL TO UNDE RSTAND THE LOGIC FOR DENIAL OF DEDUCTION OF THE SAME INCOM E. 28. ACCORDINGLY WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCTION U/S 80TTA OF THE ACT OF INTEREST EARNED O N SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. 29. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALL OW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 24 OF RS. 2,00,000/-, U/ S 80C OF RS. 1,50,000/- AND U/S 80TTA OF THE ACT OF RS. 10, 000/-. GROUND NO.6 AND 7 STAND ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. 30. GROUND NO.8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL A ND, THEREFORE, NEEDS TO ADJUDICATION. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE STANDS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 17 OF 18 WE NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 IN ITA NO. 1175/CHD/2019. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF T HE CASE & IS BAD IN LAW AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATED TO THE ADDITIONS MADE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT{A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,00,000/- CLAIMED U/S 24 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.152756/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80C FOR RS.1,50,000/- AND RS.2756/- U/S 80TTA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ,1961. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEN D OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS HEARD & DISPOSED OFF. 31. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL WAS NOT PRESSED AND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED AS NOT PRE SSED. 32. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 33. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL, IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE PA RTIES THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS GROUND IS SIMILAR TO THE IS SUES IN GROUND NOS.6 & 7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPE AL IN ITA NO. 1174/CHD/2019 DEALT WITH BY US ABOVE. THE FINDINGS GIVEN THEREIN AT PARAS 17 TO 29 OF OUR ORD ER ITA NOS.1174 & 1175/CHD/2019 A.YS. 2015-16 & 2016-17 PAGE 18 OF 18 ABOVE SHALL APPLY TO THESE GROUNDS ALSO MUTATIS MUT ANDIS. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE , STAND ALLOWED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 34. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12.03.2021. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPU RNA GUPTA) */ JUDICIAL MEMBER &'/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12 TH MARCH, 2021 * * *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 / GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR