Amarjeet Singh, New Delhi v. ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi

ITA 6965/DEL/2018 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 696520114 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AAGPS2209D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 6965/DEL/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant Amarjeet Singh, New Delhi
Respondent ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2021
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 02-11-2018
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO. 6965/DEL/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6965/DEL/20 18 (A.Y 2010-11) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFER ENCING) AMARJEET SINGH 23 REGAL BUILDING CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI AAGPS2209D (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-52(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 20.09.2018 PASSED BY CIT(A)-18 NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON LOAN IN A S UM OF RS. 2 96 333/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE OR DER BEING ARBITRARY ERRONEOUS AND UNLAWFUL MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECTI ONS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF. APPELLANT BY SH. K. SAMPATH ADV & SH. V. RAJA KUMAR ADV RESPONDENT BY MS. SHIVANI BANSAL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 08.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.03.2021 2 ITA NO. 6965/DEL/2018 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOW ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8 19 950/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2 96 333/- B Y DISALLOWING INTEREST U/S 57 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEF ORE CIT (A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND TH E TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 254/143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 18.1 0.16. IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN LOA N TAKEN FROM SMT. MADHU BHANDARI AND THE AMOUNT GIVEN BY HIM TO THE FIRM SM & SONS AND THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION U/S 57 OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SMT. MADHU BHANDARI H AS NOT BEEN DIRECTLY PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FIRM SM& SONS THER EBY THE DIRECT LINKAGE BETWEEN THE TWO TRANSACTIONS IS NOT ESTABLISHED. MO REOVER THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED A SUM OF RS. 10 00 000/- TO THE FIRM WHICH REFLECTS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM WHICH IS A RUNNING ACCOUNT AND FROM WHICH NO INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AF TER EXAMINING THE BANK STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND HAS DISALLOWED T HE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 96 333/- U/S 57 OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO. 6965/DEL/2018 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON LOAN OF A SUM OF RS. 2 96 333/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED RELIEF OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. THE FACTS IN THIS PRESENT YE AR ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND 2012-13. THE CIT(A) IG NORED THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF 70 LAKHS LOAN FROM MADHU BHANDARI AND RS. 10 LACKS WHI CH WAS AN ADVANCE TO M/S SM & SONS FOR EARNING INCOME AND BALANCE TO OTH ER PARTIES FOR BOOKING OF SPACE IN RESPECT OF EARNING INCOME. THE ASSESSEE H AD EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 9 39 876/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 FROM M /S S M & SONS BESIDES THIS THE ASSESSEE ALSO INCURRED EXPENSES ON RENT TH AT OF RS. 48 000/- SALARY OF RS.1 20 000/- AND PROFIT OF RS. 4 53 795/-. THE FIR M HAD PAID TAX ON THE PROFIT. INTEREST OF RS. 43 04 029/- WAS ALSO EARNED IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2014-15 FROM M/S S M & SONS AND NO INTEREST WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR FROM M/S S M & SONS. THUS FOR THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AL L THE CONDITIONS WERE FULLY SATISFIED AND ALL THE DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT INSTEAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES HAS ALLOWED THE EXP ENSES TOWARDS THE INTEREST AND THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRESENT YEA R AS WELL IS ALLOWED. 4 ITA NO. 6965/DEL/2018 8. IN RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED : 23/03/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI