KARTIK S. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24(2), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.08.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

The short facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income declaring income of Rs.74,76,800/-. During the year under consideration assessee has earned interest income of 2 Shri Kartik S. Gandhi Rs.3,19,277/- on the loan advanced by him to M/s. Gandhi Automation Pvt. Ltd. where the assessee is a whole time director. For the said loan to M/s. Gandhi Automation Pvt. Ltd. the assessee has borrowed loans from outsiders and he has paid interest on the said borrowed loans amounting to Rs.3,18,794/- which he has claimed as a deduction by way of interest expense from interest income earned by him from the said M/s. Gandhi Automation Pvt. Ltd. There is no direct nexus between the loans borrowed and loans advanced. To prove this nexus, the assessee has submitted the copies of bank pass book/statements of the earlier years when these loans have been borrowed and immediately advanced to M/s. Gandhi Automation Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) and the Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the documentary evidences and disallowed the same.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee has submitted all the details before AO and the Ld. CIT(A) but without considering the same they have passed the order. Therefore, all the details may be verified by the AO and appeal may be restored to AO.

Ld. D.R. objected to it.

Having heard both the parties, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken all these evidences on record but has not considered the documentary evidence which was filed before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we restore

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.