INDRA KUMAR GUPTA, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 12(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 204/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7806 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH SR
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS UMA MAHADEVKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI I BENCH BEFORE SHRI R.V.EASWAR (PRESIDENT) & SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.204/MUM/2010 A.Y 2006-07 INDRA KUMAR GUPTA (PROP.), INTER DYE INDUSTRIES, 5, APPEJAY HOUSE, 130 APOLLO ST. FORT, MUMBAI 400 020 PAN: AAAPG 8611 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(1)(4), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MRS. UMA MAHADEVKAR. RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.K.SINGH. (SR. AR) O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, AM: IN THIS APPEAL VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED TH ROUGH WHICH THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED CERTAIN AMOUNTS AND INTEREST WAS PAID IN THE RANGE OF 9% TO 12%. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE WAS CHARGING INTEREST IN THE RA NGE OF 9% TO 15% FROM THE MONEY ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO INTERES T WAS CHARGED FROM SOME OF THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFI CER WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE @ 11% OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THOSE PARTIES AND DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` `` ` .2,28,435/-. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT[A] FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO INTEREST WAS CHARGEABLE IN RESPECT OF LOAN TO M/S SNOWCOOL MENTHA PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD. SIMILARLY, SI NCE THE AMOUNT OF 2 ` `` ` .2,00,000/- WAS PAID TO SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA ON 31 -3-2005, NO INTEREST WAS HELD TO BE CHARGEABLE. IN RESPECT OF T HE OTHER PARTIES, LD. CIT[A] OBSERVED AS UNDER: .HOWEVER, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE INT EREST DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE THREE REMAINING PART IES ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL BALANCES OUTSTANDING FOR THE ACTUAL PERIOD F OR THEY REMAINED OUTSTANDING. 4. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, FAIRLY S UBMITTED THAT ALL THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE ALREADY BEEN AD DRESSED BY THE LD. CIT[A] AND, THEREFORE, APPEAL MAY BE TREATED AS INF RUCTUOUS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT[A]. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT[A] DELETED THE INTEREST IN ONE CASE BY FOLLOWIN G THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN ANOTHER CASE INTEREST WAS HELD TO BE N OT CHARGEABLE BECAUSE LOAN WAS GIVEN ONLY ON THE LAST DATE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IN THE CASE OF REMAINING PARTIES, HE HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO CHARGE INTEREST FOR THE ACTUAL PERIOD. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE LD. CIT [A] AND, THEREFORE, APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 9 TH MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.V.EASWAR) (T.R.SOOD) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 29/3/2011.