Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7630 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
01-09-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
06-07-2017
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
12-08-2016
Judgement Text
ITA.1479/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.1479/BANG/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/S. SYNDICATE BANK EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NO.30/2, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR JAI MUNI RAO CIRCLE , BENGALURU 560 040 .. APPELLANT PAN : AAEAS0700Q V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(2), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. C. R. NULVI, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. M. K. BIJU, JCIT HEARD ON : 6.07.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 01.09.2017 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE CIT (A) - 3, BENGALURU, DT.04.08.2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09. ITA.1479/BANG/2016 PAGE - 2 02. GROUND NUMBER 2 READS AS UNDER : 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ADDING AND SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF THE RS.1,66,300/-, THOUGH SAID INTEREST IS PAID ON THE REFUND OF THE DEPOSIT MADE BY THE MEMBER ON THE DIRECTION OF KARN ATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 03. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID AM OUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO MR G K RAO, PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE KAT. THE SAID MR G K RAO, HAD DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.53,0 00/- FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF THE SITE BY THE ASSESSES SOCIETY HOWEV ER THE SOCIETY FAILED TO ALLOT THE SITE AND ACCORDINGLY THE CASES WERE FILED AGAINST THE SOCIETY BEFORE KAT, AND THE KA TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE MERIT OF THE CASE HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING SOCIETY TO PAY INTEREST FOR DELAYED HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SITE AND THEREFORE DIRECTED T HE ASSESSEE TO REFUND THE INITIAL AMOUNT ALONG WITH THE INTEREST. 04. IT WAS ARGUED BY LD. AR, THAT THE EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONNECTED WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE S OCIETY, HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,66,300/- SHOULD BE DELETED. 05. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. ITA.1479/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 06. IN OUR VIEW THE CLAIMANT OF INTEREST TO MR G K RAO WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY. WE FIND FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY THAT THE SOCIETY HAS SHOWN TO HAVE EARN ED THE INCOME FROM ANY OTHER INCOME I.E. INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSIT AN D HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ACTIVITIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SOCIETY WAS NOT INTO LENDING OF MONEY AND GIVING OR TAKING THE INTE REST WAS NOT THE DUTY OR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. AS THE EXPEND ITURE IS NOT A RELATED TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSING SOCIETY, THEREFORE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US DESERVES TO BE DISALLOWED AND AC CORDINGLY WE DISALLOW THE SAME. 07. GROUND NUMBER 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS : 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN MAKING AND SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS .69,200/- ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE MISMATCH OF RS.6,220/- FOR THE TDS DEPOSITED TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ASSUMED THE INTERES T INCOME OF RS.69,200 WHICH IS AGAINST THE FACT NARRATED BEFORE THE CIT (A). 08. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE RECORD AND THE JUDGEMENT CITED AT BAR. IN THIS REGA RD THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAD UPHELD THE ADDITION OF THE RS.69,200/- O N THE GROUND THAT THE ITA.1479/BANG/2016 PAGE - 4 AMOUNT HAD REPRESENTED TAX DEDUCTED BY THE BANK ON THE INTEREST APPEARS TO BE LOGICAL. ON THE OTHER THE LD AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE TDS DEDUCT ED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISS IONER IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN OUR VIEW THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE AUT HORITIES BELOW WAS ERRONEOUS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN RETURN THE P AYMENT WAS MADE TO THE CONTRACTOR AND THEREFORE THIS FACT IS REQUIRED TO B E VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THERE WAS NO BASIS TO CONCLUD E THAT THE TDS SHOWS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, REPRESENTS THE INTEREST RE CEIVED / DEDUCTED BY THE BANK. IN VIEW THEREOF WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REM AND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AGAIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN THERETO. IN VIEW THEREOF THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSE E APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 09. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 1ST DAY O F SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BENGALURU DATED : 01.08.2017 MCN* ITA.1479/BANG/2016 PAGE - 5 COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY
