SHRI DIBYENDRU SARKAR, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2-1, JAIPUR

ITA 913/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6238 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: APEKSHA KALARA ADV DH VK
• Keywords: Salary income; Additional evidence
• Section: 80C; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES A, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 913/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DIBYENDRU SARKAR, 101, D-25, FRIENDS ENCLAVE, JAGAN PATH, SADAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD 2(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ALZPS 6465 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ARPIT VIJAY (CA) & MS. APEKSHA KALARA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/01/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 200 8-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN OF RS. 85,399/- U/S 24(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND PRIN CIPAL REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN OF RS. 7,298/- U/S 80C OF THE IT AC T, 1961 AS APPEARING IN FORM NO. 16 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER/INT EREST AND PRINCIPAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ICICI BANK. 2. THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED TO DELETE THE RELEVANT D ISALLOWANCES/ ADDITION MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. ITA 913/JP/2018_ DIBYENDRU SARKAR VS ITO 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS INDIVIDUAL AND DID NOT FILE ANY R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHO RT THE ACT) ON 25/3/2015. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE U /S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOM E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION OF 26AS/ TDS DATA FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148/144 OF THE ACT AT THE TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.7,08,690/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF SALARY INCOME OF RS. 5,04,737/- AND OF RS. 2,03,956/- AS U NEXPLAINED SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD BILLS. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGE D THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO CALLED F OR A REMAND REPORT AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD BILL AS WELL AS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CREDIT OF TDS AS APPEARING IN 26AS. FURTHE R THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE TAX ON EMPLOYMENT AS WELL AS PROVIDENT FUND DEDUCTED BY THE EMPLOYER BUT DID NOT ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN AS WELL AS INTEREST ON THE HOUSING LOAN. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 C OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PROOF OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN AS WELL AS ITA 913/JP/2018_ DIBYENDRU SARKAR VS ITO 3 INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE AS WELL AS APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOW OBTAINED CERTIFICATE FROM THE HDFC BANK REGARDING REPAYMENT OF LOAN AS WELL AS INTEREST ON THE HOUSING LOAN. THUS, THE LD AR HAS PL EADED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE AND THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT AS WELL AS U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT M AY BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN AS WELL AS INTE REST ON HOUSING LOAN. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS OBJECTED TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FI LED ANY RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. IT IS A CASE OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL A S RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE AS SESSMENT U/S 144 ITA 913/JP/2018_ DIBYENDRU SARKAR VS ITO 4 READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CERTAIN D EDUCTIONS AND TDS CREDIT. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FR OM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, AL LOWED CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS U/S 80C AS WELL AS DELETED THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD BILLS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) AND 80C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT O F INTEREST AND REPAYMENT OF THE HOUSING LOAN, THEREFORE, THE LD. C IT(A) DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND P RINCIPAL AMOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONGWITH AN APPLICATION. THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE BANK AS WELL AS THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THE REPAY MENT OF LOAN AS WELL AS THE INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PROPOSED TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE VERIFIED INDEPEN DENTLY FROM THE THIRD PARTY AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE A CASE OF ANY MAN IPULATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE RECOR D OF THE ASSESSING ITA 913/JP/2018_ DIBYENDRU SARKAR VS ITO 5 OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SAME AND THEN CONSI DER AND DECIDE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) AS WELL AS 80C OF THE A CT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH C SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 TH JANUARY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI DIBYENDRU SARKAR, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 2(1), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 913/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR