HOMELAND REALTORS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-12(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5915/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 February 2022AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (an email from the electricity provider) which was not available earlier. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of this new evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a builder, had deposited a consolidated security amount for electricity connections. TDS was reflected in the assessee's 26AS statement on interest, which was added to income. The assessee claimed the interest was adjusted in electricity bills of sold flats and not received by them.

What were the issues?

Whether TDS reflected in 26AS on interest on security deposit, adjusted in electricity bills, is taxable in the hands of the assessee. Admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Hearing: 02/02/2022Pronounced: 02/02/2022

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Mumbai [in short 'the CIT(A)’] dated 23/08/2019 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Ms. Akbinder Kaur appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the solitary issue raised in this appeal is against the addition of Rs.1,52,270/- made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short 'the Act') in respect of TDS amounts reflected in 26AS statement and not being disclosed in the return of income.

3. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a builder and developer. The assessee had deposited consolidated amount of security deposit for release of electricity connections with Tata Power Company Ltd.(in short ‘TPCL’). The said security deposit was in respect of separate flats that were sold by the assessee. The assessee had recovered the deposits given on behalf of each unit at the time of sale of unit from the respective purchasers. The interest on the security deposit was actually not received by the assessee. The interest amount was adjusted in the respective bills for the flats that were sold. Hence, the assessee was not beneficiary in any manner of the interest adjusted in the electricity bills of each unit. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that the assessee had written a letter to TPCL seeking clarification in respect of TDS amount reflected in 26AS statement in assessee’s account. After repeated follow up, the TPCL vide their email dated 16/04/2021 informed that since PAN of the assessee is registered against multiple consumer numbers, hence, the interest for the respective consumers has been deducted against the PAN of the assessee. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to the said email at page 16 of the Paper Book. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that since the said email was received from TPCL after the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order, this is an additional evidence which requires to be admitted for proper adjudication of the issue raised in the appeal. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee made oral request for admitting additional evidence i.e. email dated 16/04/2021 from TPCL at page 16 of the Paper Book.

3.

Shri T.Shankar representing the Department vehemently supported the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative further opposed the admission of additional evidence at this stage.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The solitary issue which is subject matter of appeal is addition of Rs.1,52,270/- on account of TDS deducted on interest reflected in 26AS statement. A perusal of 26AS statement at pages 41 to 46 of the Paper Book shows that TDS reflected therein is from TPCL. The contention of the assessee is that the said TDS amount is in respect of interest on consolidated security deposit made by the assessee for releasing power connection to the flats that were sold by the assessee. Purportedly, the assessee is not the beneficiary of interest against which TDS has been deducted and reflected in 26AS statement of the assessee. Purportedly, the interest amount has been adjusted in the electricity bills of the respective consumers. The additional evidence filed by the assessee is an email communication received by the assessee from TPCL. Undisputedly, the aforesaid communication was not available with the assessee at the time of assessment proceeding or during the proceedings before the CIT(A). The said document was received by the assessee from TPCL after adjudication of the first appeal by the CIT(A). Since, said email from TPCL goes to the root of the issue, we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence. We deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer to decide this issue afresh after examining the facts in the light of additional evidence filed by the assessee.

5.

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 2nd day of February, 2022.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →