Raj Kumar Singal, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1338/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5164 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA; ROHIT VOHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER& MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1338 & 1339/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 & 2010-11 SH. RAJ KUMAR SINGAL, VS. THE ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 5( 1), SCO 15, SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. BJMPS3568P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. B.M. MONGA, ADVOCATE & SH. ROHIT VOHRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, SR DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:21.03.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALSRELATING TO THE DIFFEREN T ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]-2, GURGAON DATED 29.09.2016. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEINGDECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. IN ITA NO. 1338/CHD/2016 , THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NOS. 1339 & 1338/CHD/2016 RAJ KUMAR SINGAL, CHANDIGARH 2 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,44,193/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES BY NOT ACCEPTING THAT THE LAND BEING APPURT ENANT TO BUILDING IS TO BE TREATED AS HOUSE PROPERTY ENTITLI NG FOR A DEDUCTION OF 30%. 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND OF APPE AL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS MEMO OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S 24( B) IN RESPECT OF HOUSE NO. 147, SECTOR 28, CHANDIGARH. 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIE D WHILE APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT INTEREST ON BORROWED CAP ITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,34,255/- AND RS. 64,613/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED OUT OF RENTAL INCOME WHICH WAS INADVE RTENTLY CLAIMED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY DECLARED IN RESPECT OF LAND AT ZIRAKPUR THROUGH ACT UALLY,IT IS IN RESPECT OF # 147, SECTOR 28, CHANDIGARH WHEREAS IN ITA NO. 1339/CHD/2016 , THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,67,581/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES BY NOT ACCEPTING THAT THE LAND BEING APPURTENANT TO BUILDING IS TO BE TREATED AS HOUSE P ROPERTY ENTITLING FOR A DEDUCTION OF 30%. ITA NOS. 1339 & 1338/CHD/2016 RAJ KUMAR SINGAL, CHANDIGARH 3 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE ALLOWING THE STATUTOR Y & LEGAL CLAIM OF RS. 8,30,209/- OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 5 7(IV) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODU CED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER & CIT(A). 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE HOLDING THAT IT IS N OT CLEAR WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THIS INCOME TO TAX IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED FULL AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON COMPENSATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,60,418/- AS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. 4. GROUND NO.1 RAISEDIN BOTH THE APPEALS IS GENERAL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 5. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS CON CERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDRESSED ANY ARGU MENTS IN THIS RESPECT, HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN TH E FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN SO FARAS THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.2 IN B OTH THE APPEALS IS CONCERNED. 6. NOW COMING TO GROUND NOS. 3 &4 OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1338/CHD/2016, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND HAS STATED THAT THOUGH TH ESE ISSUES RAISED VIDE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY TAKEN BEFO RE CIT(A) BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADJUDICATION / FINDING ON THESE ISSUES. THEREFORE, ITA NOS. 1339 & 1338/CHD/2016 RAJ KUMAR SINGAL, CHANDIGARH 4 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION. 7. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO NOT OBJECTED TO THE REMANDIN G OF THESE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) AS THE SAME HAVE REMAINED UN -ADJUDICATED AT THE END OF LD. CIT(A). IN THE FAIRNESS OF THINGS, THEISSUES RAISED VIDE GROUND NOS.3 &4 ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE DECIDE GROUND NOS.3& 4 OF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. 8. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1338/CHD/2016 IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 9. SO FAR AS GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 IN ITA NO. 1339/CHD/2016 ARE CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INV ITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THE ISSUE RAI SED VIDE GROUND NO.3 BEFORE US HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 11, I.E. GROUN D NO.4 OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A)WHEREINTHE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THISISSUE A GAINST THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 7, WHICH IS A COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.4.2017 VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO FURNISH THE COPY OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUPPLIED C OPIES OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AT S. NO. 8 TO 14 WHICH INCLUDES THE COPIES OF THE AWARD NO. 573 OF U.T. CHANDIGARH ONPAYMENT OF E NHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ONSTRUCTURE AS AWARDED BY ADG, CHANDIG ARH.THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO .3, HOWEVER, THE LD. ITA NOS. 1339 & 1338/CHD/2016 RAJ KUMAR SINGAL, CHANDIGARH 5 CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER. HE IN VI EW OF THIS,IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED VIDE GROUND NOS.3& 4 BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION . 10. THE LD. DR HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE ABOVE. 11. THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED VIDE GROUNDS 3 & 4 ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :21.03.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR