Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s. India Gold Limited ACIT–12(2)(2) बनाम/ Varsha, 13, Adarsh Society Mumbai. Ramchandra Lane Extension Vs. Malad (West), Mumbai- 400 064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCI-4727-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Rajora-Ld.AR Revenue by : Shri Shailesh Kumar Yadav-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 16/09/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 16/09/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2015-16 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-20/IT-10343/2017-18 dated 22/03/2019 on following grounds: - 2 M/s. India Gold Limited Assessment Year :2015-16
(a) The Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals) - 20, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in dismissing the appeal holding that the Form No.35 has been verified by Appellant ‘M/s India Gold Limited' and has neither been verified by the Managing Director nor any other Director and hence the appeal is not valid. The Appellant submit that Form No, 35 has duly been verified and digitally signed by the Director of the Appellant 'Shri Shirish Shantilal Jain' and the name of the Appellant 'M/s India Gold Limited' typed in Form of verification is only a typographical error; and hence the appeal filed by the Appellant is a valid appeal and CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merit.
(b) The CIT(A) erred in passing the order, without providing any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant to represent its case. The Appellant submit that the CIT(A) ought to have given an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant; and on the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal shall be set aside to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the disallowance of interest on Car loan of Rs.30,57,125/- u/s 37 of the Act made by the AO by holding that interest cannot be claimed as deduction as vehicles were not owned, not possessed and not put to use for the business purpose. The appellant submits that, on the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant and in law, interest paid for acquiring vehicles shall be allowed as deductible revenue expense/business loss.
The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the disallowance of interest on housing loan of Rs.7,95,573/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act made by the AO on the ground that the Appellant was neither in possession of flat nor capitalised the same in its books of account. The Appellant submit that it has purchased the flat and also taken the possession of the flat during the year under consideration; hence on the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant and in law, interest on housing loan shall be allowed as deductible expense.”