Smt. Kanak Bhargava, Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer -1(1), Lucknow

ITA 452/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 45223714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARMENDRA KUMAR

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.452/LKW/2013 A.Y.: 2006 - 07 SMT. KANAK BHARGAVA, 501, GYAN GANGA APARTMENT FAIZABAD ROAD, LUCKNOW. PAN:AEEPB8417J VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 28/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 /12/2013 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT ( A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 17/09/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED T O CONSIDER THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD WHOLLY, EXCLUSIVELY, CONTINUOUSLY AND CONSISTENTLY USED THE CASH CREDIT LIMIT FOR HER BUSINESS PURPOSES, ISSUED BY HDFC BANK AND PAID ENTIRE INTEREST ON AFORESAID CASH CREDIT FOR RS.104,280/ - , FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT. H ENCE, DISALLOWANCE OF AFORESAID INTEREST FOR THE ONLY REASON THAT AFORESAID LOAN WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE SON OF 2 APPELLANT, IS ILLEGAL, AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT SEEKS PERMISSION TO MODIFY AND/OR ADD ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MIGHT REQUIRE OR JUSTIFY. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT ALTHOUGH THE LOAN FROM HDFC BANK WAS TAKEN IN THE NAME OF SHRI JAI DEEP BHARGAVA, THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO RUNS A SEPARATE UNIT IN THE NAME OF M/S VIDYA ENGINEERING WORKS BUT THE FUNDS WERE U S ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, INTEREST IS ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, IT IS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ALTHOUGH THE OVERDRAFT WAS AVAILED FROM HDFC BANK BY THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE BUT SUCH FUNDS WERE USED BY THIS ASSESSEE FOR HER OWN BUSINESS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF HDFC BANK FROM WHOM THE OVERDRAFT WAS TAKEN BY THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE BANK STATEMENT OF M/S VIDYA ENGINEERING WORKS WITH BANK OF BARODA. THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRELATED ALL THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK AND SHOWN THAT THE SAME WERE DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE FUNDS OVERDRAFT BY SHRI JAI DEEP BHARGAVA HAVE BEEN USED BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE FOR HER OWN BUSINESS. UNDER 3 THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 /12/2013 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR