PUNE SMART CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAION LTD.,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5), PUNE

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047091450(1), dated 07.11.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both parties. Case file perused.

2 ITA.No.25/PUN./2023 1. “Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in bringing to Tax Interest of Rs.10,90,67,924/- on fixed deposits with Bank out of Capital Grant received from the Central Government. ] Appellant prays to delete the same, as it is not the Income of the Assessee. [Rs.3,84,43,763/-].

2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not being just and equitable in not accepting Assessee's contentions, and making addition of Rs.10,90,67,924/- [Rs.3,84,43,763/-]. Appellant prays for deletion of addition.

3. Appellant denies liability to Interest charged u/s234A, 234B, 234C of I.T. Act. 4. Appellant prays for cancellation of Interest charged u/s.234A, 234B, 234C etc. 5. Appellant prays for Just and Equitable relief. 6. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, take additional grounds, submit additional evidence, and/or withdraw the ground/s, during appellate Proceedings.”

4 ITA.No.25/PUN./2023 5 ITA.No.25/PUN./2023 6 ITA.No.25/PUN./2023 3.1. Mr. Puranik submitted at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have wrongly assessed the impugned interest income once the same had to be remitted back in the central government’s account as per the necessary intimation coming from Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Mission Smart City Division. He highlighted the fact that the assessee has filed it’s additional evidence application running into 08 pages not only comprising of the above facts/letter in terms of GFR 2017 in clause 230(8) but also evidence of actual remittances of the aforesaid interest income in financial year 2016-2017 to 2021-2022 including that in issue of Rs.10,90,67,924/- by way of demand drafts.

7 ITA.No.25/PUN./2023 4. The Revenue could hardly dispute that all these remittance evidence(s) goes to the root of the matter which requires Assessing Officer’s afresh factual verification. That being the case, we admit the assessee’s above additional evidence and restore it’s corresponding substantive grounds back to the Assessing Officer for his de-novo adjudication on merits as per law preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2023.