Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dt. 29.09.2017 of CIT(A)-10, New Delhi pertaining to 2014-15 AY on the following grounds:
1. “Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of Rs. 1,15,000/- received by the appellant from the business of letting out was chargeable to tax under the head “Income from House Property” and not income under the head “Profits and Gains from Business and Profession”.
2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of interest income of Rs. 10,198/-.
3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,20,000/- u/s 68 of the Act even though the source of the cash credit was duly explained.
4. Because the appellant craves for leave to add/alter, amend any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.
5. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.”
2. The Ld. AR inviting attention to ground no. 1 submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the said ground. Accordingly, the said ground is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Addressing the grievance in ground no. 3 which was stated to be the major issue in the present appeal, it was his submission referring to page 9 para 3.1.4 of the CIT(A) that the assessee had explained the availability of the amount in the hands of Smt. Mudita Sanghai as amount received to the extent of Rs. 2,22,750/- on LIC maturity. It was his submission that she was an Income tax assessee. However, the assessee’s claim was dismissed on the ground that supporting evidences were not filed. It was his submission that as per the instructions received from the assessee, infact it was not LIC maturity and was wrongly understood by the counsel or the authority. It was submitted that in fact, a loan was taken against
ITA 7292/Del/2017 Page 2 of 2 the LIC policy by Smt. Mudita Sanghai. Permission to file said evidence was orally sought. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR who though relying upon the order fairly conceded that the issue may be remanded to the Assessing Officer to carry out necessary verifications etc.
I have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. In the peculiar facts & circumstances of the present case, as have been set out hereinabove, I am of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside back to the file of the AO. The assessee in its own interests is directed to place complete necessary supporting evidences before the said authority and ensure full and proper participation and compliances. The AO shall consider the claim denovo in accordance with law and decide the same after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
5. Addressing the issue raised in ground no. 2 it was the submission of the Ld. AR that the discrepancy viz-a-viz 26AS statement appearing as interest income from Canara Bank has been offered for taxation in the subsequent assessment year. Accordingly, it was his limited prayer that let the said issue also go back to the AO for carrying out necessary verification. The said prayer was not opposed by the Ld. Sr. DR. Accordingly, in the light of the submissions of the parties before the Bench ground no. 2 is restored back to the file of the AO with the direction to consider the correctness of the claim of the assessee and pass an order in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th May,2018.