What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking details. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to pass a speaking order.

The assessee claimed trading loss from F&O, interest on loan, and loan processing charges as business expenses. The CIT(A) confirmed these disallowances, stating they lacked co-relation with the declared business income.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of F&O trading loss, interest on loan, and loan processing charges by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the CIT(A)'s order was a speaking order.

Bakulesh O Agarwal vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Suman Kumar, DR

For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR

Income Tax Officer, Shri Bakulesh O Agarwal Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbug Bansidhar Bhuvan, Durner Rd. Parel, Mumbai Bandra, Mumbai-400 050 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAAPA9198D .. Shri none, AR Assessee by Revenue by .. Shri Suman Kumar, DR .. Date of hearing 02-03-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 02-03-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-30, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-30/ITO-19(3)(1)/IT-167/10-11 dated 31-07- 2013. The Assessment was framed by ITO ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 29-12-2010 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

Three inter-connected issues in this appeal of assessee is as regards to disallowance of trading loss of F & O amounting to Rs.4,12,603/-, disallowance of interest of loan amounting to Rs.8,76,880/- and disallowance of loan of Rs. 3,46,396/-. The learned Sr. DR taken us through the findings of CIT(A) given at Para 10 which reads as under: -: -

“10. In the 7th ground of appeal

, the appellant has stated that interest of Rs.8,76,880/-, loan processing charges of Rs.3,46,396/- and Loss on F &

0. Trading of Rs.4,12,603/ have been added in spite of filing of documents. However, from the P & L A/c, I find that the income declared by the appellant under the head 'business/ profession' is; car hire charges of Rs.2,16,000/-, salary received from M/s Agarwal & Co. of Rs.4,50,000/- and interest from Shri Bakulesh O Agarwal; AY:08-09

Agarwal & Co. of Rs.3,88,862/ that is total of Rs. 10,54,862/- has been shown under the above head of income. As against the said amount, the appellant has claimed expenses of Rs.18,76,062/- and computed loss of Rs.8,21,200/-. The said amount of Rs.18,76,062/- includes the 'interest on other loan' of Rs.8,76,880/- and 'loan processing charges' of Rs.3,46,396/- and loss on F & 0 Trading of Rs.4,12,603/-. Since all these expenses do not have any co-relation with the receipts under the head car hire charges, salary received from Agarwal & Co. and interest received from Agarwal & Co., the same have been wrongly claimed under the head of business and profession. The above additions are therefore, confirmed. The ground of appeal no.7 is dismissed.”

3. From the above Para of the order of CIT(A), we find that it is not clear how the CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue of disallowance of interest and loan processing charges. Similarly, the CIT(A) has simply confirmed loss of F & O trading. The order of CIT(A) is totally a non-speaking order and we cannot adjudicate the issue in the absence of details consider by the CIT(A). In term of the above, we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) will pass a speaking order on this issues.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 02-03-2017.

BAKULESH O AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments