Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI
Date of Hearing 12/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement 31/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (A.M): This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–52, Mumbai, dated 07/06/2017 and it pertains to Assessment Year 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2011, declaring total income at Rs. 5,15,05,225/- The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act,1961 (In short “Act”) on 28/01/2014, assessing the total income at Rs. 5,15,09,480/- after making disallowance on account of depreciation on motor car. Thereafter, the case was reviewed u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT (Central) -2, Mumbai by way of passing an order, dated 16/02/2014, wherein the assessment completed u/s 143(3) as held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue with regard to the issue of applicability of section 36(1)(iii), disallowance u/s 14A and unsecured loans taken by the assessee. The Ld.CIT remitted the issue to the file of AO to look into the above said aspects by giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and complete the assessment accordingly.
The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) and served on the assessee after giving opportunity to the assesse and by considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO confirmed the additions as per the directions of CIT(Central-2), Mumbai.
Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)-52, Mumbai and after considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO with regard to section 36(1)(iii) and additions of unsecured loans. Aggrieved with the above order, revenue is in appeal before us, raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. "On the facts &. in the circumstances of the case & in law, the id CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,50,22,732/-mode by AO on account of disallowance of interest expenditure, without appreciating the that the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details called for by the AO to prove that the loans availed were used for that “ business related to windmill." 2. "On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,92,88,000/- made by AO u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, without appreciating the that the assesses could not furnish any material facts or information regarding the said unsecured loan during the assessment proceedings" 3. "On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in accepting additional evidences/submission without giving opportunity to the AO in contravention of the rule 46A of the IT Rules."
4. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need be.
5. The appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai, may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 5. In the above ground raised
by the revenue, mainly aggrieved with the facts that Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleted the additions without appreciating that assessee failed to furnish the requisite details called for by the AO. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR brought to our notice, the informations were already submitted before the AO, not only at the time of reassessment, also at the time of original assessment , the same information was considered by the Ld. AO in the original assessment and also, the same information was appreciated by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order. This fact was brought to the notice of Ld. DR and Ld. DR has not controverted anything on this aspect. Therefore, in our consider view, all the informations, which was submitted before us, the Ld.CIT(A) considered in his order to adjudicate the matter with this information, which was also available with the AO, at the time of re- assessment or at the time of original assessment. Therefore, this is not new information, which was submitted before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the ground raised by revenue, considering the above facts on record. Therefore, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
6. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 31/10/2019