Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad, vide appeal no. CAT(A)-5/ITO. Wd.5(2)(3)/30/2015-16 dated 18/07/2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, on the following Grounds: 1.01. That Learned CIT(Appeal)-5, Ahmedabad has erred in confirming an addition of an interest of Rs.24,04,000/-. 1.02. That various reasons advanced by Learned CIT(Appeal)-5, Ahmedabad are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the ease. 1.03. Therefore additions confirmed by learned CIT(Appeal)-5, Ahmedabad of Rs.24,04,000/- should be deleted.
ITA No. 2227/Ahd/2016 Sone Mahesh Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13. - 2 - 2.00. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before final hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in this case, on verification of the statement of total income annexed to return of income, it is noticed that assessee has shown interest income of Rs.24,04,000/- on Govt. of India 8% Senrgo Bunch, 2003 (taxable bond) and made an investment of Rs.40,00,000/-. However, the said amount of Rs.24,04,000/- was claimed as under:- "Expenses incurred 1. In view of the above, the assessee stated vide letter dated 30/12/2013 in response to the query raised. Alongwith the submission assessee furnished copy of computation of income in the case of Shri Mahesh Ratilal Sha (HUF) for A.Y. 2012-13. In the said return of income also, it is also noticed that Rs.48,08,000/- is shown as interest income on security and claimed deduction as under:- Less Deductions Interest paid 1. Interest wrongly credited in Mahesh Ratilal Shah(HUF) Rs.48,08,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the case of Shri Mahesh Ratilal Shah (HUF) for A.Y.2012-13 is completed u/s.143(3) dated 17/11/2014 at the returned income of Rs.39,98,996/-. The deduction claimed of Rs.48,08,000/- was
ITA No. 2227/Ahd/2016 Sone Mahesh Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13. - 3 - not found to be added back in the case of Mahesh Ratilal Shah (HUF).
In the assessment proceedings, assessee always stated that whatever income earned on investment of Rs.40,00,000/- is already offered to tax. Relevant portion of assessee's letter dated 26/03/2005 is also reproduced hereunder..........
All the above goes to prove that assessee is making claim of deduction against income of Rs.24,04,000/- in pretext of offering the same in the case of Mahesh Ratilal Shah (HUF) for A.Y.2012-13. It is also mentioned here that assessee claimed TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- against the income of GOI 8% savings Bond, 2003 (Taxable) an refund has been issued to the assessee of Rs.2,50,020/- as per processing of return of income u/s.143(1) dated 24/11/2012.
In view of the above, the interest income earned on Rs.24,04,000/- and on which TDS deducted and refund has been issued is added to the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13."
Against the said addition of Rs.24,04,000/- assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
ITA No. 2227/Ahd/2016 Sone Mahesh Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13. - 4 - 3. We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. In this case, appellant has made investment, Shri Mahesh Ratilal Shah(HUF) has made an investment of Rs.40,00,000/- in Government Bond in the name of the assessee. It is also fact that interest income received on such investment is offered for tax in each year on due basis of Mahesh Ratilal Shah (HUF). It is also contended that the entire amount received and credited in the appellant bank account and then transfer to Mahesh Ratilal Shah (HUF). As per the Govt. of India, Shri Mahesh Ratilal Shah (HUF) cannot purchase RBI bond, therefore, Mahesh Ratilal Shah (HUF) purchased bond in the name of the assessee but AO has not verified the HUF return for the reason based known to the AO. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and send it back to the file of the AO to verify the return of the Mahesh Ratilal Shah (HUF) and the assessee. Thereafter, decide the matter because on one income double tax cannot be paid.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 15/12/2017
Sd/- Sd/-- एन.के. �ब�लैया महावीर �साद (लेखा सद�य) (�या�यक सद�य) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 15/12/2017 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS
ITA No. 2227/Ahd/2016 Sone Mahesh Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13. - 5 -
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-V, Baroda. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad