BHARAT VIRCHAND GADA, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(1)(2) , MUMBAI

ITA 7240/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2797 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHAMMED RIZWAN
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 48

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 7240/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 BHARAT VIRCHANDGADA, 501, AJAY SHOPPING CENTRE, T.H. KATARIA MARG, MATUNGA- WEST, MUMBAI-400016 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(1)(2), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI. PAN NO. AAEPG1441M APPELLANT RESPOND ENT ASSESSEE BY :NONE REVENUE BY : MR. MOHAMMED RIZWAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 04/03/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/03/2020 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A)-48, MUMBAI DATED 12.10.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. LEARNED C.I.T. (A) 48 ERRED IN DISALLOWING INTEREST CLAIM OF RS.20,37,586/- AGAINST PROPERTY INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT INTEREST PAID ON LOAN TAKEN ARE AGAINST PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE, EVEN THOUGH FULL DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ALLOW INTEREST O F RS.20,37,586/- AGAINST PROPERTY INCOME. 2. LEARNED C.I.T. (A) 48 ERRED IN NOT GIVING SPECIFIC ORDER THAT INTEREST WRONGLY CLAIMED U/S 57(III) INSTEAD OF CLAIM U/S 24 I.E. IN COME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, EVEN BHARAT VIRCHANDGADA ITA NO. 7240/MUM2018 2 THOUGH REVISED RETURN WAS FILED DURING ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ALLOW CLAIM OF INTEREST AGAINST PROPERTY INCOME. 3. LEARNED C.I.T. (A) 48 ERRED IN NOT GIVING SPECIFIC ORDER THAT REVISED RETURN FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS FOR CLAIM OF INTEREST U/S 24 INSTEAD OF U/S 57(III) IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. APPE LLANT PRAYS THAT REVISED RETURN FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEE N CONSIDERED. 4. LEARNED C.I.T. (A) 48 ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING UTIL IZATION OF LOAN AGAINST PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON WHICH RENT RECEIVED, FOR WHICH DETAI LS WERE GIVEN. APPELLANT PRAYS TO CONSIDER LOAN IS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPER TY AND PRAYS TO ALLOW INTEREST OF RS20,37,586/-. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPELLANT PRAYS TO ALLOW INTEREST OF RS.17,04,373/- AS WORKED AND SUBMITTED TO C.I.T. (A) DURING HEARING AGAINST PROPERTY INCOME. 6. LEARNED C.I.T. (A) 48 ERRED IN DISMISSING 4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALTOGETHER WITHOUT DISCUSSING SEPARATELY EACH GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND SHOWING ITS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2013-14 ON 16.01.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.17,95,360/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 OF RS.20,37,586/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INCO ME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SET OFF OF LOSS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITH THE INCOME FO RM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 04.12.2015. IN REPLY TO THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT HE HAS TAKEN LOAN AND PURCHASE THE GODOWN. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECL ARED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND CLAIMED INTEREST LOSS UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SET OFF OF INTEREST LOSS AGAINST THE H OUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE BHARAT VIRCHANDGADA ITA NO. 7240/MUM2018 3 WANTS TO FILE REVISE RETURN DECLARING THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 24 AND FURNISHED THE REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZ INDIA LTD. V. CIT ON 24.03.2006. ACCORDING LY, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE TOOK P LEA THAT PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS WHOLLY RELATES TO HOUSE PROPERTY AND FU RNISHED VARIOUS CALCULATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET FOR VARIOUS YEAR. ON PERUSAL OF D ETAILS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE SI MPLY MADE A CLAIM OF INTEREST AND HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBS TANTIATE HIS CLAIM AND NEXUS ON INTEREST EXPENSES AND ACCORDINGLY AFFIRM T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICES OF NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. PERUSAL ON RECORD REVEALS THAT A SSESSEE HAS FURNISHED SAME PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGE NUMBER 1 TO 35. THUS, WE LEFT NO OPTION TO ACCEPT HEIR THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DR AND TO DECIDE THE APP EAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUP PORTED ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST FOR ACQUIS ITION OF PROPERTY/WAREHOUSE. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES FOR ACQUISITION OF A NY HOUSE PROPERTY OR THE INTEREST PAYMENT HAS ANY NEXUS THAT INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS FILED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE TR IBUNAL. THUS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY RELIEF. BHARAT VIRCHANDGADA ITA NO. 7240/MUM2018 4 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES INCLUDING TH E DOCUMENTS FILED BY WAY OF PAPER BOOK. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.20,37,586/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENSES IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE NEXUS OF INTEREST PAYMENT WITH THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE NEX US OF INTEREST EXPENSES WITH THE EARNING OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE REFORE, WE DO NOT ANY MERITS IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 04.03.2020 DATED: RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI