Arun Kumar Goel, Meerut V. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut

ITA 6215/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9647 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Proportionate interest; Set aside

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 6215/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6215/DEL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arun Kumar Goel, Through L/H Beena Goel, 11/5, Mansarover, Meerut. PAN- ABPPG5473R Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Meerut. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ramit Kakkar, Adv. Department represented by Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.09.2022 Date of pronouncement 29.09.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Meerut, dated 21.09.2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in law in restricting the deduction u/s 80C(3) to Rs. 10,000/- against the claim of Rs. 49,750/- and CIT(A) also in error confirming the same. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in law in disallowing interest of Rs. 3,67,020/- and CIT(A) also in error confirming the same. 3. That the assessee has right to add, modify or delete any ground during the appeal proceeding.” 2 ITA no. 6215/Del/2017 2. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press ground no. 1. Accordingly, ground no. 1 is dismissed as not pressed. Ground no. 3 is general in nature, needs no separate adjudication. 3. The only ground remained to be adjudicated is ground no. 2, which is against confirmation of addition of Rs. 3,67,020/-, in respect of disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below grossly erred in making addition and sustaining the same purely on the basis of whims and fancies. He submitted that the finding of the Assessing Officer (the AO) is contrary to the records and disallowance is highly excessive. 5. Per contra, learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of authorities below. 6. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In this case the AO made addition on the basis that there was no business/commercial expediency for giving interest free/ charging lower interest. The AO made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Act, without recording as to how such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value. Learned CIT(Appeals) sustained the finding without considering the mandate of law. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order 3 ITA no. 6215/Del/2017 and direct the AO to delete the addition. Ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 7. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 29 th September, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI