Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी धु�ु� आर.एल रे�ी, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मऺजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Chny/2018 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bhurmal Gautamchand Gandhi, The Income Tax Officer, No. 69, Godown Street, George Town, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 11(4), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [PAN:AAFPJ8748R] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G.Johnson, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 28.04.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, dated 22.09.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 26.03.2015 declaring total income of ₹.14,96,490/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for
2 I.T.A. No. 762/Chny/18
scrutiny and by issuing statutory notices to the assessee, various details were called for. The assessee has shown gross interest income in Schedule OS of ITR which was less than the interest receipts reported in 26AS. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer sought for clarification from the assessee. However, the assessee could not explain before the Assessing Officer. On examining the profit and loss account, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has paid ₹.40,96,159/- towards interest payments to known parties, but to prove the claim, the assessee has not furnished any supporting evidence. Moreover, the assessee has not deducted TDS on such payment of interest. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest payment of ₹.40,96,159/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Similarly, the assessee has made rental payment of ₹.15,86,400/- and other expenses of ₹.4,22,829/- totalling to ₹.20,09,225/- and no TDS was made. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of ₹.20,09,225/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Since the assessee could not explain the increase in sundry creditors for ₹.97,48,737/-, the Assessing Officer added the same to the total income of the assessee and in all, the income was assessed at ₹.1,58,54,125/-. On appeal, since the assessee has not furnished any evidence towards deduction of TDS on the interest and rental payment as well as confirmation from the sundry creditors, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act.
3 I.T.A. No. 762/Chny/18
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing the details of proof of payment of interest and TDS deducted thereon, party-wise ledger account for payment of rent and confirmation from sundry creditors, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that after filing the detailed written submissions along with necessary enclosures thereon before the appellate authority, neither the ld. CIT(A) has obtained any remand report from the Assessing Officer or any further details were called for from the assessee before confirming additions made in the assessment order and prayed for deleting the additions. Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine various details filed by the assessee.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including the paper book containing proof of payment of interest and TDS deducted thereon, party-wise ledger account for payment of rent and confirmation from sundry creditors. Before confirming the additions, the ld. CIT(A) has not obtained any remand report from the Assessing Officer on the submissions along with enclosures filed by the assessee before the appellate authority or any explanations/additional details were called for. Under these facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the entire matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the details as may
4 I.T.A. No. 762/Chny/18
be furnished by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the Department in finalizing the assessment.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 06th May, 2021 in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 06.05.2021 Vm/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु�/CIT, 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.