METAL GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 15(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3527/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 October 2017AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim that the interest income was either not theirs or offered in a subsequent year. The assessee was directed to reconcile the differences.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 6,01,169/- as interest income to the assessee's income, as this amount was not reflected in the assessee's books of account. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, stating the income was assessable in the current year.

What were the issues?

Whether un-reconciled interest income, not reflected in the books, is to be added to the assessee's income for the relevant assessment year.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: D.T. GARASIA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Hearing: 16.08.2017Pronounced: 04.10.2017

Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.02.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The short facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has made the addition of interest income of Rs.6,01,169/-. The AO found that the assessee has received the interest from following parties: Name of Type of AIR As per books Difference payer Income BOC India Interest 70,440/- - 70,440/- Ltd. Income Kotak -do- 7,45,206/- 4,33,017/- 3,12,189/- Mahindra Bank Ltd. ICICI Bank -do- 21,944/- - 21,944/-

2 M/s. Metal Gems Ltd. ICICI Bank -do- 69,815/- - 69,815/- Ltd. BOB -do- 7,754/- - 7,754/- Citi Bank -do- 1,16,300/- 2,273/- 1,14,027/- NA BOC India -do- 5,000/- - 5,000/- Ltd. Total - 6,01,169/- Since the amount of Rs.6,01,169/- was not shown in the book of account, the AO made the addition.

3.

Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has restored the matter by observing as under: “7.4 Regarding other Interest Income, stated to be accounted in subsequent year, it is seen that the same has been credited in the accounts of the assessee during the F.Y 2008-09 and therefore, there is no reason why the same is assessable in subsequent year. The AO has rightly assessed the same in this year. However, if the same has been offered for taxation in subsequent year, AO may consider allowing appropriate relief in the subsequent year since the same income cannot be taxed twice. On merits, therefore, this ground is dismissed.”

4.

During the course of hearing, the assessee did not present but filed the written submissions. We find that, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not furnishing convincing explanation to explain the differences and merely stated that it does not belong to him or it was offered to tax in subsequent years. Prima facie, the assessee was having dealing with the above entities. Undisputedly, the assessee was required to offer the income pertaining to impugned AY in impugned AY only and not in other years. Therefore, on the facts of the case, since the matter is of reconciliation, we restore the same to the file of Ld. AO to verify the claim of the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to reconcile the differences.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →