Promila Agarwal, Kolkata V. ACIT, Cir.30, Kolkata

ITA 489/KOL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5866 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE REQUESTED NOT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 250; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 489/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Promila Agarwal.....................................................Appellant [PAN: AFYPA 0088 H] Vs. ACIT, Circle-30, Kolkata.......................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Anil Kochar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : July 12 th , 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : July 19 th , 2022 ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-13 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 02.03.2020 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.03.2015. 2. Registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 111 days. Condonation application has been filed by the assessee. Perusal of the same shows that the delay was on account of I.T.A. No.: 489/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Promila Agarwal. Page 2 of 6 COVID-19 restrictions. We, therefore, in view of the judgment of The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 find that the limitation period in filing appeal between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has been excluded for calculating the limitation period. Since the period of limitation in the case of the assessee falls during this period, the same deserves to be extended and we, therefore, condone the delay of 111 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual earning income from maintenance of house property and other sources. The case of the assessee selected for scrutiny and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act framed on 26.03.2015 assessing income at Rs. 4,66,10,045/-. Learned Assessing Officer made various additions. 4. The assessee challenged to the addition before learned CIT(A) and partly succeeded and now against the additions confirmed by learned CIT(A), the assessee is an appeal before this Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. For that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) is null and ab initio void and deserves to be cancelled as the return submitted on 18-03-2014 was invalid and could not be acted upon by the AO for framing an assessment. 3. For that the id CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was entirely illegal and not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. I.T.A. No.: 489/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Promila Agarwal. Page 3 of 6 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO relating to the alleged difference on account of income earned from AOP viz-a-viz income offered as per computation. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition on account of interest paid on loan to the LIC on alleged grounds. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds” 5. At the outset learned Counsel for assessee requested for not pressing ground nos. 1, 2 & 3 challenging the validity of the assessment order. We, therefore, dismiss ground nos. 1, 2 & 3 as not pressed. 6. Now, we take up ground no. 4 which relates to the addition made by learned Assessing Officer at Rs. 3,86,180/- under the head “Income from other sources”. As per learned Assessing Officer, the assessee has received total income at Rs. 32,58,522/- but has shown the income in the computation of income at Rs. 28,72,342/- and the difference was added to the income of the assessee. The assessee failed to get any relief before learned CIT(A) even though it was contended that the income from M/s. Gopi Builders at Rs. 6,12,608/- forming part of the total income under the head income from other sources at Rs. 32,58,522/- is income from Association of person (AOP) and there were certain deductions which the assessee was eligible to claim and the benefit of the same has not been given. Learned Counsel for the assessing also submitted that the fact that the income from M/s. Gopi Builders is only Rs. 1,50,630/- (after claiming the expenses) may be verified by the learned Assessing Officer if the issue is restored I.T.A. No.: 489/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Promila Agarwal. Page 4 of 6 to the learned Assessing Officer and to this request learned Departmental Representative was fair enough not to oppose. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The correct income from Association of person (AOP) is in dispute before us. The assessee states that the income from AOP is Rs. 1,50,630/- whereas the learned Assessing Officer has treated the same at Rs. 6,12,608/-. This being a factual aspect which needs to be examined at the end of the learned Assessing Officer, we restore this issue to the learned Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication for deciding in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee so as to file necessary details, if required. Therefore, the issue of disallowance of Rs. 3,86,180/- raised by the assessee in ground no. 4 is restored to the learned Assessing Officer and the ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground no. 5 relates to the disallowance of interest paid on loan to LIC. We observe that the assessee has claimed expenditure of interest paid at Rs. 98,241/- but in the assessment proceedings the assessee failed to furnish these details and, therefore, learned Assessing Officer made the said disallowance. When the matter came before learned CIT(A), it was stated that the said amount is paid on loan taken from LIC and this amount was taken as loan for business purposes. However, learned CIT(A) was not satisfied and confirmed the view taken by the learned Assessing Officer. 9. Now, on going through the records and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the assessee it has been I.T.A. No.: 489/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Promila Agarwal. Page 5 of 6 contended that Rs. 98,241/- is interest paid on loan taken from LIC for business purposes and the income having been shown in the computation of income and there is a nexus between the interest paid on LIC loan to the income earned during the year under head income from other sources. However, since we have restored the issue in ground no. 4 to the learned Assessing Officer, we are of the considered view that the instant issue in ground no. 5 can also be restored to the learned Assessing Officer who shall verify the veracity of the claim made by the assessee and if the claim is found correct, the deduction of the interest paid on the LIC loan may be given. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee. Thus, ground no. 5 raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 19 th July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Manish Borad] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 19.07.2022 Bidhan (P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 489/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Promila Agarwal. Page 6 of 6 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Promila Agarwal, 1, Flat No. 3A, Merlin Park, Kolkata-700 020. 2. ACIT, Circle-30, Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)- 8, Kolkata. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. True copy By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata