KAILASH GULABCHAND LILADIYA,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), NAGPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.254/NAG./2023 Assessment Year 2016-17 Kailash Gulabchand Liladiya, The Income Tax Officer, Bharat Chambers, CA Ward-5(3), Nagpur vs. Road-440018, Maharashtra PAN : AARPL8766B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Abhay Agrawal For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing : 21.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1037926090(1), dated 19.12.2021, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
“1. The learned AO erred in making disallowance of Rs.4,28,202/- on account of loan processing charges debited to profit and loss account which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law.
The learned AO has erred in enlarging the scope of limited scrutiny beyond the specified issue without taking prior approval from competent authority.
2 ITA.No.254/NAG/2023
The learned AO and learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, loan processing charges of Rs.4,28,202/- incurred by assessee on loan borrowed for buying shop premises was revenue in nature and would be allowable as deduction under section 37(1).
Without prejudice, the learned AO and learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, loan processing charges of Rs.4,28,202/- was incurred post obtaining possession of the shop premises and hence, proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is not applicable.
The assessee craves leave to add or amend any other ground of appeal, if required.”
The assessee vehemently argued in the light of the above stated pleadings that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and in facts in invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs.4,28,202/-. He has further inviting my addition to the assessee’s application seeking to place on record additional evidence(s) dated 24.03.2024 along with possession letter of the concerned immovable property as well as his detailed paper book running into 50 pages.
Learned DR would hardly dispute that the foregoing additional evidence(s) goes to the root of the matter which deserves to be verified by the lower authorities. Faced with this situation, I hereby admit the assessee’s foregoing application and restore his sole substantive grievance back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication subject to the rider that it shall be taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only to file and prove all the
3 ITA.No.254/NAG/2023
relevant facts within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.04.2024.
Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated : 25th April, 2024 Ravi/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Nagpur concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Nagpur. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
