SRI.SANTHOSCHAND CHOPRA S/O MR.GORAKCHAND CHOPRA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR ITA NO.100157/2015 BETWEEN: SRI SANTHOSCHAND CHOPRA S/O MR.GORAKCHAND CHOPRA PROP. M/S.VANDANA TRADERS APMC YARD, SAUNDATTI DIST: BELAGAVI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS ... APPELLANT. (BY SRI V.K.GURUNATHAN AND SRI H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES.) AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), BELAGAVI ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE.)

2 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.246/PNJ/2014 DATED 18.6.2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.,. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Appellant-Assessee, is questioning an order of remand dated 18.6.2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Panaji, remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the claim of the assessee and if found correct, not to disallow the interest paid to the payee and in the alternative to disallow only to the extent where interests are found payable on the last date.

3 2. Heard Sri V.K.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Y.V.Raviraj, learned counsel for the revenue. 3. The appellant has raised the following three questions of law for consideration of this Court. (i) Whether in law, the ITAT was correct in passing an order without adjudication of a ground that was brought in appeal before it? (ii) Whether such an order would not form an order not per incuriam? (iii) Whether the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable when Form No.15G has been obtained from payees/when payees did not have taxable income? 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that out of 31 payees, appellant had in fact obtained Form No.15G from 26 payees. Most of these forms were received as on 31.3.2008 and only 5 forms were received belatedly. The case

4 of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that Form No.15G were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax by Flyking Courier Service, Saundatti. The Assessing Authority has recorded a finding that the waybill number of the courier under which assessee claims to have been sent the Forms was incorrect and under the said way bill one Mr.H.P.Kulkarni had sent his consignment to Chandrakant Nadagoud on 9.12.2010. On this premise, the Assessing Authority disallowed the deduction. On appeal, the ITAT by the impugned order has remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer with the aforementioned directions. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. In the light of the factual matrix of the case and the finding recorded by the Assessing Authority, and the impugned order is one being of remand, we

5 see no question of law in this appeal for consideration by this Court. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Mrk/-