Sona Mahesh Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2227/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8052 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: DIPAK THAKKAR

Judgement Text

, * ** * ,LK ,LK,LK ,LK- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH * ** * IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NO.2227/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SONA MAHESH SHAH, 110, TAPOVAN SOCIETY, NR. MANEKBAUG SOCIETY, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD. # VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD. $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : BGEPS 6185 F ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : SHRI DIPAK THAKKAR, AR ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. P. MAURYA, SR. DR + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 13/12/2017 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15/12/2017 3# O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-5, AHMEDABAD, V IDE APPEAL NO. CAT(A)-5/ITO. WD.5(2)(3)/30/2015-16 DATED 18/07/201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13, ON THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS: 1.01. THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEAL)-5, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF AN INTEREST OF RS.24,04,0 00/-. 1.02. THAT VARIOUS REASONS ADVANCED BY LEARNED CIT(APP EAL)-5, AHMEDABAD ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE EASE. 1.03. THEREFORE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CI T(APPEAL)-5, AHMEDABAD OF RS.24,04,000/- SHOULD BE DELETED. ITA NO. 2227/AH D/2016 SONE MAHESH SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13. - 2 - 2.00. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE FINAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CAS E, ON VERIFICATION OF THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME ANNEXED TO RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST INCOME OF RS.24,04 ,000/- ON GOVT. OF INDIA 8% SENRGO BUNCH, 2003 (TAXABLE BOND) AND MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.40,00,000/-. HOWEVER, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.24,0 4,000/- WAS CLAIMED AS UNDER:- 'EXPENSES INCURRED 1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE STATED VIDE LETT ER DATED 30/12/2013 IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED. ALONGWI TH THE SUBMISSION ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF COMPUTATION O F INCOME IN THE CASE OF SHRI MAHESH RATILAL SHA (HUF) FOR A.Y. 2012-13. IN THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME ALSO, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT RS.48,08,000/- IS SHOWN AS INTEREST INCOME ON SECURITY AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION AS UNDER:- LESS DEDUCTIONS INTEREST PAID 1. INTEREST WRONGLY CREDITED IN MAHESH RATILAL SHAH(HU F) RS.48,08,000/-. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THA T THE CASE OF SHRI MAHESH RATILAL SHAH (HUF) FOR A.Y.2012-13 IS C OMPLETED U/S.143(3) DATED 17/11/2014 AT THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.39,98,996/-. THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED OF RS.48,08, 000/- WAS ITA NO. 2227/AH D/2016 SONE MAHESH SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13. - 3 - NOT FOUND TO BE ADDED BACK IN THE CASE OF MAHESH RA TILAL SHAH (HUF). IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE ALWAYS STAT ED THAT WHATEVER INCOME EARNED ON INVESTMENT OF RS.40,00,00 0/- IS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX. RELEVANT PORTION OF ASSESSE E'S LETTER DATED 26/03/2005 IS ALSO REPRODUCED HEREUNDER...... .... ALL THE ABOVE GOES TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE IS MAKING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AGAINST INCOME OF RS.24,04,000/- IN PRETE XT OF OFFERING THE SAME IN THE CASE OF MAHESH RATILAL SHA H (HUF) FOR A.Y.2012-13. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED HERE THAT ASSESSE E CLAIMED TDS CREDIT OF RS.2,40,000/- AGAINST THE INCOME OF G OI 8% SAVINGS BOND, 2003 (TAXABLE) AN REFUND HAS BEEN ISS UED TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS.2,50,020/- AS PER PROCESSING OF RETU RN OF INCOME U/S.143(1) DATED 24/11/2012. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON RS.24,04,000/- AND ON WHICH TDS DEDUCTED AND REFUND HAS BEEN ISSUED IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y. 2012-13.' 2. AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.24,04,000/- ASSE SSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2227/AH D/2016 SONE MAHESH SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13. - 4 - 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. IN THIS CASE, APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT, SHRI MAHE SH RATILAL SHAH(HUF) HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.40,00,000/- IN GOVERNMENT BOND IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO FACT T HAT INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED ON SUCH INVESTMENT IS OFFERED FOR TAX IN E ACH YEAR ON DUE BASIS OF MAHESH RATILAL SHAH (HUF). IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED AND CREDITED IN THE APPELLANT BANK ACCOUNT AND THEN TRANSFER TO MAHESH RATILAL SHAH (HUF). AS PER THE G OVT. OF INDIA, SHRI MAHESH RATILAL SHAH (HUF) CANNOT PURCHASE RBI BOND, THEREFORE, MAHESH RATILAL SHAH (HUF) PURCHASED BOND IN THE NAM E OF THE ASSESSEE BUT AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE HUF RETURN FOR THE REAS ON BASED KNOWN TO THE AO. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SEND IT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY TH E RETURN OF THE MAHESH RATILAL SHAH (HUF) AND THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, DE CIDE THE MATTER BECAUSE ON ONE INCOME DOUBLE TAX CANNOT BE PAID. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15 /12 /2017 SD/- SD/-- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/12/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS ITA NO. 2227/AH D/2016 SONE MAHESH SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13. - 5 - !'# $#! # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-V, BARODA. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD