Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi dated 14.11.2014 pertaining to A. Y. 1986-87. 2. The grievance of the revenue read :- 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to allow the deduction under section 80VVA of the I. T. Act, 1961?
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the deduction was not allowed by the AO when the appeal effect was given in both the A. Y. i.e. 1985-86 dated 31.07.2001 ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of Guest House Expenses in context of Hon’ble High Court order? 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting charge of interest under section 217 of the Act ? 5. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the interest was charged at the time of completing of assessment u/s. 143 (3) of the IT Act, 1961 ? 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.”
The bone of contention is the order giving appeal effect to the appellate orders by the Assessing Officer. While giving the appeal effect the Assessing Officer did not consider the relief given by the appellate authorities which prompted the assessee to carry the matter before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) after considering the appellate orders which were subject matter of appeal effect found that the claim of deduction u/s. 80 VVA of the Act needs to be allowed on the correct amount of incentives. Similar directions were given for the allowability of guest house expenses. 5. We do not find any error or infirmity in the such directions of the CIT(A) because in any case the Assessing Officer ought to have given appeal effect correctly as per the findings of the appellate authority. Grounds No.1 to 3 taken together are dismissed. 6. In so far as charging of interest u/s. 217 is concerned, order u/s. 273 of the Act for the assessment year 1986-87 which is placed at page 68 of the paper book clearly show that the Assessing Officer has dropped the penalty proceedings clearly holding that no advance tax was payable as per provisions of section 209 of the Act. As the Assessing Officer himself has accepted that there was no liability to pay advance tax, we are of the considered view that there is no case for charging interest u/s. 217 of the Act. Ground No.4 is accordingly dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.07.2019.