M/s. Vimpy Investment Leasing & Finance Company Limited, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5124/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 512420114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH K GUPTA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 51 24 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 20 10 - 11 M/S VIMPY INVESTMENT LEASING & VS. ACIT, CIRCLE16(1) FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NEW DELHI C - 5/9, VASANT KUNJ, 1 ST FLOOR, NEW DELHI ( PAN : AAACV0999A ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SURESH K. GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ROBIN RAWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10 - 7 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 10 - 7 - 20 15 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXV, NEW DELHI DATED 17 . 7 .201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 . 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF ALV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.8,35,266/ - RESULTING INTO AN ADDITION OF RS.5,48,461/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ACTION OF THE AO TREATING THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 91,249/ - AS INCOME TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME SOURCES WITHOUT PROVIDING DEDUCTION OF UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS/BUSINE SS EXPENSES CLAIMED AS PER P&L ACCOUNT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS CLEARLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING ACTION OF THE AO IGNORING THE BUSINESS LOSS OF THE APPELLANT AS PER RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT ALLOWING AS DEDUCTION MINIMUM EXPENSES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP THE COMPANY AFLOAT. 3. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS REITERATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION / DISALLOWANCES MAY BE DELETED AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH CONSID ERATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, ON THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REMITTING BACK THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO, HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. 6 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH ME . 3 I FIND THAT WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 1 THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HA S ESTIMATED THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 8,35,266/ - RESULTING INTO AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,48,461/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW, HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE ON ACTUAL BASIS INSTEAD OF ESTIMATION BASIS. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE AO AND PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 6.1 WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO INTEREST INCOME OF RS.91,249/ - IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT IT WAS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE WRONGLY TREATED THE INCOME OF RS. 91,249/ - AS INCOME TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD IN COME FROM SOURCES WITHOUT PROVIDING DEDUCTION OF UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS/ BUSINESS EXPENSES CLAIMED AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IN MY VIEW THE SAME HAS COGENCY AND NEED TO BE EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I REMIT BACK THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6.2 WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3 RELATING TO IGNORING THE BUSIN ESS LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER RETURN OF INCOME BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I FIND THAT AS ABOVE VIDE PARA NO. 6.1, I HAVE ALREADY REMITTED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, HENCE, IN MY 4 OPINION, THIS GROUND IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED UPON. 6.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO NOT ALLOWING AS DEDUCTION MINIMUM EXPENSES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP THE COMPANY AFLOAT, HAS BECOME CONSEQUENTIAL, HENCE, NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED UPON. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 /7/201 5 . SD/ - [ H.S. SIDHU ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 10 /7/201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 5