Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH : Hyderabad
Before: Shri S.S. GODARA & Shri L.P. SAHU
Date of Hearing : 06/04/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22/06/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)-6 Hyderabad’s order dated 30.09.2019 passed in case no.10195/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’].
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Shri Chandramouli Kinnera, Sec’bad.
The assessee’s twin folded pleadings in the instant appeal challenge correctness of both the lower authorities’ action making unexplained investment addition of Rs.77,20,525/- and sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs.4,71,600/-; made in the course of assessment dated 29.12.2017 and upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order; respectively.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions against and in support of impugned disallowances/additions. The assessee’s first and foremost plea before us is that the impugned unexplained investment sum in fact represents his borrowals from friends, relatives and “other sources” which could not be sufficiently explained in either of the lower proceedings. Learned counsel next took us to assessee’s list of loan creditors appearing in para 8.7 page 12 of CIT(A)’s order containing almost more than 10 parties which were no where put to confirmation.
3.1. The Revenue’s case before us is that the assessee could not prove identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the said parties which formed main reason for the CIT(A) to confirm the impugned addition. Faced with this situation and more particularly in view of the fact that the assessee had submitted list of the creditor parties which could not be effectively put for factual verification, we deem it proper to restore the instant former issue back to the file of Assessing Officer with a rider that it shall be assessee’s duty to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of all the said creditors / parties within three effective opportunities, at his own risk and responsibility only. This former substantive ground is accepted for statistical purposes in above terms.
Coming to sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs.47,100/-, learned counsel fails to dispute that assessee has not deducted TDS towards shop rent payment of Rs.15,72,000/-.
Shri Chandramouli Kinnera, Sec’bad.
4.1. Learned counsel’s only plea is that this assessee has nowhere been treated as the assessee in default as per sec.201(1) first proviso r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) second proviso and, therefore, the impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted. He fails to dispute that there is no material in case file which could indicate the recipient(s) concerned to have been assessed qua the impugned rental income. We therefore deem it proper to restore instant latter issue back to Assessing Officer to examine afresh in light of sec.40(a)(ia) second proviso. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in Open Court on 22 /06/2021.