Sh. Vijeta Vashisht, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6744/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 674420114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 6744/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : - 2010-11 VIJETA VASHISHT VS. ITO 155, TELEWARA, WARD-39(1) SADAR BAZAR NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN ADTPV1587H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VED JAIN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY :SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING :14.7.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 .7.2015 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 17.10.2 014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 2 (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,24,864/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FROM C.P. & SONGS-HUF. (II) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTR ICTING THE DEDUCTION TO RS. 4,35,606/- IN RESPECT OF INTEREST WHICH PERTAINS TO V.P. & SONS A S AGAINST RS. 5,60,470/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. (III) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGN ORING THE FACT THAT ENTIRE INTEREST RECEIVED BY IT AND ACCOUNTED FOR PERTAIN TO V.P. & SONS AND VP & SONS IN TURN PAYS INTEREST TO THE ASSESEE IN RESPECT OF ITS BALANCE WITH V.P. & SONS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 48,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES CONTRIBUTED TO V.P. & SONS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 24,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL FEE TO V.P. & CO. ITA NO. 6744/DEL/2014 VIJETA VAS HISHT VS. ITO 2 2. I HAVE HEARD SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA, S R. DR ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI VED JAIN ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW I HOLD AS FOLLOWS :- 4. THE FIRST ADDITION IS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,24, 864/- BEING INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 650,950/- FROM M/S . VP SONS HUF DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR A LOAN OF RS. 87.84 LACS. M /S. VP SONS HAD FURTHER ADVANCED THE AMOUNT TO THIRD PARTY, WHO HAD PAID INTEREST VP & SONS BUT HOWEVER TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER FORM 26AS RECEIVED, INCOME FROM PARTIES INCLUDES RS. 5,60,470/-, WHICH WAS TRA NSFERRED TO THE HUF AND OFFERED TO TAX BY THE HUF. THE HUF PAID INTEREST OF RS. 6,5 0,950/- TO THE ASSESSEE ON A DEPOSIT OF RS. 87.84 LACS. AS THE ASSESEE HAD NOT F ILED THE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. VP SONS, BALANCE SHEET ETC. THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE FIND THAT THE HUF IS ALSO A SSESSED BY THE SAME AO. THE RETURN FILED BY THE HUF HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND NO DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE. BECAUSE FORM 26AS BEARS THE PAN NUMBER OF ASS ESSEE , ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. WHEN BOTH THE ASSESSES I.E THE INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS THE HUF, ARE ASSESSED BY THE SAME AO, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THE GROUND THAT NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE HUF. THE INCOME IN QUESTION HAS BEEN O FFERED TO TAX BY THE HUF. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE ALLOW THIS GROUND O F THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,24,864/-. ITA NO. 6744/DEL/2014 VIJETA VAS HISHT VS. ITO 3 5. THE SECOND ISSUE IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 48,000/-, BEING AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE HUF M/S. V.P. & SONS. THE HUF A DMITTED THIS INCOME AND PAID TAX. THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF TAX SAVING OR EVASION AS THE HUF ALSO PAYS TAX AT A HIGHER RATE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DISALLO WANCE IN QUESTION IS DELETED. 6. THE THIRD ISSUE IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,000/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE HUF ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES RENDERED BY THE HUF TO THE ASSESSEE. . AS RENDERING OF SERVICE IS NOT PROVED, IN MY VIEW THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY MADE. IN THE RESULT THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,000/- IS UPHELD. HENCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 17 TH JULY, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 14.7.2015 ITA NO. 6744/DEL/2014 VIJETA VAS HISHT VS. ITO 4 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16.7.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER