Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM (A.Y:2012-13) MVR GL Joint Venture Income Tax Officer 304 Gokul Arcade, Subhash Rd, Ward No.25(3)(1) C-10, R. No. 604, 6th Floor, Vile Park(E) Mumbai-57 Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, BKC PAN No.AAKFM7520P Bandra (E) Mumbai-50 .. Appellant Respondent Assessee by .. Shri N.R. Agarwal, AR Revenue by .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR Date of hearing .. 25-05-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 07-06-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-39, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-39/IT-197/ITO 25(3)(1) dated 07-10-2016. The Assessment was framed by ITO ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 23-03-2015 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of interest income, which has been disclosed by the partner of joint venture M/s GL construction and paid tax on this income of Rs 3,47,403/-. For this assessee has raised following ground: -
“1. The learned CIT(A), erred in confirming the fact that assessee had subcontracted the work to partner of joint holder on back to back basis as per agreement & erred by not considering the fact that partner of joint venture M/s G.L. Construction had paid taxes on the interest income of Rs. 3,47,403/- from Bank. Thus resulting in double taxation of same income. There is no revenue loss.”
MVR GL Joint Venture A.Y:12-13 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a joint venture between GL construction Pvt. Ltd and MVR GL venture, and was awarded a contract by MMRD for widening of roads as per contract entered between joint venture and GL construction Pvt. Ltd. and entire work has been contracted to GL construction on back to back basis and filed nil return of income. The assessee filed nil return of income because of income including interest income has been declared by GL construction Pvt. Ltd and assessed as such in their return of income. But the AO added this interest income in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, now assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal.
I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 3,47,403/- as interest on fixed deposit made with SBI and the same amount is transferred to the account of GL construction vide general entry. The assessee drew my attention to the accounts of the assessee, whereby this interest income is transferred to GL construction. As the amount has already been transferred to GL construction and income is disclosed in the hands of GL construction, this cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. I also find that the same interest income arising from fixed deposits maintained with SBI in the AYs 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09 has already been accepted by the AO in the hands of GL construction Pvt. Ltd. and all the assessments are framed under section143(3) of the Act. Even otherwise, for taking the principal of consistency the interest income should have not been added in the hands of the assessee. Hence, I direct the AO to delete the addition and allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07-06-2017.