Smt. Renu Gupta, Muzaffarnagar V. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 2076/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6608 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2076/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 RENU GUPTA, VS. ITO, WARD-1(1), 247, NORTH CIVIL LINES, MUZAFFARNAGAR-UP MUZAFFARNAGAR (UP) (PAN: AATPG8502E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. SAMPATH, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. RAKESH KUMAR, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPU GNED ORDER DATED 29.1.2016 OF LD. CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR PERT AINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING A CTIONS OF THE AO IN: 1. INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 WHICH WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WAS BASED O N VAGUE AND IMPLAUSIBLE REASONS; 2. ADDING RS. 81,340/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL TREATING THE SAME AS NOT BEING REL ATING TO THE INCOME EARNED; 2 BOTH THE ABOVE ACTIONS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS A ND UNJUST MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECTIONS FOR RELIEF. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT NOTICE U/ S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 07.8.2012, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 2,00,972 /-. THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 16,46,670/-, INT ER-ALIA, DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 81,340/- VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.3.2014 PASSED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.1 .2016 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND THEREFORE, THE SAM E IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.1.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 2078/DEL/2016 (AT 2008-09) BY THE SMC-I, BENCH, DEL HI HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THIS I SSUE DE NOVO IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI 3 PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC). HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 MAY ALSO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME DE NOVO IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE CHENNAI PROPERTIES (SUPRA). 7. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE DECI SION DATED 10.1.2017 REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE OF THE ITAT, SMC-I BENCH, DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE PASSED IN ITA NO. 2078/DEL/2016 (AY 2008-09). FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY , I AM REPRODUCING THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA NO. 6 & 7 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 10.1.2017 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. A S AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES, I RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE DE NOVO IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 9. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITA T, DELHI, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQ UARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION, BECAUSE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THAT OF CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2008-09 PASSED IN ITA NO. 2078/DEL/2016 VIDE ORDE R DATED 10.1.2017. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DEC ISION DATED 10.1.2017 OF THE ITAT, SMC-I BENCH, DELHI, AS AFORESAID TH E ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME DE NOVO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD. (SUPRA). 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/02/ 2017. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/02/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITATTRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR