ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI, MUMBAI V. ITO 18(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3166/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, the proprietor of Manav Jewellers, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A), which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 22, 23, and 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issues were the addition of deemed rent for a flat at Borivali and the disallowance of deductions claimed against interest and amenity charges. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's additions without proper examination of the additional evidence provided by the assessee, which was not available during the lower proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300044 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(1); 250; 143(2); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3166/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2012-13) Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Manav Jewellers, Patwa Chawl, Ground Floor, 80, Sheikh Menon, Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Vs. ITO 18(1)(1), Earnest House, Narimanpoint, Mumbai.-400021. PAN/GIR No. : AAAPR8626H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Om Kandalkar.AR Respondent by : Ms.Jayashree Thakur Date of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A. Confirming the addition of Rs1,26,800/- on Account of deemed Rent of Rs.1,80,000/- of the Flat at Borivali, while the staff of proprietory concern M/s Manav Jewellers were staying at the same premises. ITA Nos. 3166/Mum/2022 Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai. - 2 - B. Confirming addition of Rs. 8,76,179/- by disallowing claim of deduction from interest and Amenity Charges received, while interest was claimed against interest received of Rs.2,98,167/- on Loans and Advances, Rs. 1,50,967/- against self occupied property and Rs. 4,27,045/- against Amenity charges received for premises given on rent A. Addition of Rs. 1,26,800/- on Account of deemed Rent of Rs.1,80,000/- of the Flat at Borivali. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs1,26,800/- on Account of deemed Rent of Rs1,80,000/- of the Flat at Borivaliwhile the staff of proprietary concern M/s Manav Jewellers were staying at the same premises without appreciating the fact that in earlier years it was not disallowed B. Addition of Rs. 8,76,179/- by disallowing claim of deduction from interest and Amenity Charges received On the facts and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,76,179/- by disallowing claim of deduction from interest and Amenity Charges received, while interest was claimed against interest received of Rs.2,98,167/- on Loans and AdvancesRs1,50,967/- against self occupied property and Rs. 4,27,045/- against Amenity charges received for premises given on rentwithout appreciating the fact that in earlier years it was not disallowed The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or rescind any of the above grounds of appeal. ITA Nos. 3166/Mum/2022 Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai. - 3 - 2.The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the jewellery business and filed the return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 on 1309.2012 disclosing a total income of Rs.9,78,948/- and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time and submitted the details. The AO on perusal of the information found that the assessee has disclosed more than one house property as self occupied and provisions of Sec. 22 & 23 of the Act are attracted. Since the assessee has not submitted the details of municipal taxes paid and hence no deduction was allowed and determined the income from house property of Rs.1,22,800/- In respect of second disputed issue with respect to claim of deduction from the income, the AO has observed that the assessee has claimed deduction of interest on unsecured loan against the amenities charges of Rs.10,95,230/-, the contentions of the assessee are that these loans have been utilized for the purpose of acquiring the asset and deduction was claimed u/s 57(iii) of the Act. The AO ITA Nos. 3166/Mum/2022 Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai. - 4 - was not satisfied with the claims and has disallowed Rs.8,76,179/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs. 19,81,930/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.03.2015. 3. Aggrieved by the order the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO but was not satisfied with the explanations and information and confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition by the AO overlooking the factual information filed in the proceedings. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and has filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the evidences were not examined by the lower authorities and the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). ITA Nos. 3166/Mum/2022 Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai. - 5 - 5. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions by the A.O. as the transactions are not supported with the documentary evidences. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with the Home loan account statements, bank account statement, Ledger Accounts, financial statements ets which were not available earlier and could not produce before the lower authorities. Further the evidences play a important role in decision making in the adjudicating proceedings. Therefore considering the facts, circumstances and additional evidences, the assessee should not suffer for non filing of material information, as the evidences played vital role in decision making and admit the additional evidence. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the entire disputed issues along with the additional evidence to the file of the assessing officer to decide afresh on merits and the assessee ITA Nos. 3166/Mum/2022 Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai. - 6 - should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. Accordingly, allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2023 Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 28.04.2023 KRK, PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT (Judicial) 4. The PCIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, //True Copy//() 1. ( Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai