M/s Jasoda Nandan Ram Avtar, Pilibhit V. Income Tax Officer-1, Pilibhit

ITA 60/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3951 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.60/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-2013 M/S JASODA NANDAN RAM AVTAR, BARA BAZAR, BISALPUR, DISTT. PILIBHIT. PAN:AAEFJ9076H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - I, PILIBHIT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 17/10/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 6 0 /10/2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 22/12/2015 RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE T HROUGH RPAD HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TH EREFORE, I DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING LEARNED D.R. AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2 3. AFTER HEARING LEARNED D. R. AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I NOTED THAT IN THIS APPEAL THERE IS ONL Y ONE ISSUE RELATING TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.4,04,125/- IN RESP ECT OF THE INTEREST AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT THE TDS. I NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PAWNING AND TRADING OF S ILVER & GOLD ORNAMENTS AT BISALPUR, DISTT. PILIBHIT. IT HAS TWO PARTNERS WITH EQUAL PROFIT SHARING RATIO. DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.4,04,125/- ON UNSECURED LOAN FROM SMT. SHASHI BALA AND SMT. RASHMI. THE ASSESSE E RECEIVED THE FORM 15G FROM EACH OF THE DEPOSITOR BUT DID NOT SUB MIT THE COPY OF FORM 15G BEFORE THE CIT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRO OF OF FILING THE FORM 15G WITH CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE INTEREST. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), I FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE TAXABLE INC OME OF SMT. RASHMI AGARWAL WAS BELOW RS.1,90,000/-. SHE IS HAVING PAN AND DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, SHE DID N OT FILE HER INCOME TAX RETURN WHILE IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHASHI BALA, T HE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SUBMITTED HER RETURN AND PAID THE DUE TAX TO THE GO VERNMENT. THUS, I NOTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE PAYEE HAS DULY PAID THE TAX ON THE INCOME WHICH THE PAYEE HAS EARNED FROM THE ASSESSEE . ONCE THE PAYEE HAS DULY PAID THE TAX ON THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT BEING MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 201 2, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. MY AFORESAID VIEW IS DULY COVERED BY THE DECISION O F HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.302 OF 2011 GA 3200/2011, CIT VS. VIRGIN CREATION 3 DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 23, 2011. NO CONTRARY DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO MY KNOWLEDGE BY LEARNED D. R. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/10/2016) SD/. ( P. K. BANSAL ) ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED:18/10/2016 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR