Tirupati Sarjan Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

ITA 3036/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7993 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT R SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 3036/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) TIRUPATI SARJAN LTD. 11,12,13 SATYAMEV COMPLEX, NEAR GUJARAT HIGH COURT, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT- 380015 V/S THE ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACT 7015M APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUMIT R. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 08 -12-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-12-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD DATED 28.07.2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2012-13. THE ITA NO. 3036 /AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2012-13 2 APPEAL IS LATE BY 25 DAYS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE C ONDONATION PETITION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE AND S UFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL ON TIME. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY CONDO NED. 2. THE FIRST GROUND RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INT EREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,90,949/- PAID TO NBFC. 3. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS. 94,986/- TO MAGMA FINCORP LTD. AND RS. 1,95,963/- TO KOTAK MAHINDRA P RIME LTD. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOU RCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(I A) OF THE ACT, THE A.O. DISALLOWED RS. 2,90,949/-. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THOUGH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT BUT TH E SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE RECI PIENTS HAVE OFFERED THE INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE T HERE IS NO LIABILITY BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. 6. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL. THOUGH, THE LD. COUNSEL COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE WHETHER THE SAID NBFCS HAVE OFFERED THE INTEREST INCOME IN THEI R RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAME NEEDS TO BE ITA NO. 3036 /AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2012-13 3 VERIFIED BY THE A.O. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE I SSUE TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAI LS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 68,806/ - BEING DIFFERENCE IN THE STATEMENT AS PER 26AS AND AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 8. WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE RECONCILIATION ST ATEMENT AS PER 26AS VIS--VIS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLA IN THE RECEIPT OF RS. 68,806/- REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS. THE A.O. ADDED THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF THE CONCESSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF FORM 26AS, THERE IS NO SUCH RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE A.O . THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH FRESH RECONCILIATION STATEMENT TO DEMONSTRA TE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH RECEIPT OF RS. 68,806/-. THE A.O. WILL DECIDE THE I SSUE AFRESH AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO TREATED AS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. GROUND NO. 3 WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO. 3036 /AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2012-13 4 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 - 12- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 18/12/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD