MANIBEN PAEL,MUMBAI vs ITO 25(2)(2), MUMBAI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Respondent: Shri V.S. Jadhav-DR

Hearing: 19/01/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21/02/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground raised in this appeal pertains to confirming the disallowance in respect of interest of Rs.6,27,112/-, payable u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

During hearing of this appeal, Shri Aditya Maheshwari, Ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that the impugned amount was not paid during the year and in the current year, the interest payment is only to the tune of Rs. 2,29,998/-. It was explained that due to certain unavoidable circumstances confirmation from the said parties could not be furnished. The assessee furnished confirmation before this Tribunal for the first time. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri V.S. Jadhav, defended the addition and submitted that the confirmation filed before this Tribunal needs examination by the Assessing Officer so that the interest of the Revenue may be protected.

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared income of Rs.2,97,941/- in her return filed on 01/02/2010, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Since, the case of the assessee, was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. A show-cause notice was also issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee attended the proceedings and filed the details as called for from time to time as is evident from assessment order itself. In her computation of income, the assessee showed interest income of Rs.2,97,941/-. However, on perusal of details, the ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee received interest of Rs.5,27,939/- and thus after claiming netting off of interest payment of Rs.2,29,998/-, the assessee showed interest income of Rs.2,97,941/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the confirmation from the concerned parties. However, the assessee could not furnish the same. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the addition was confirmed. However, for the first time, before this Tribunal, the assessee has filed confirmation from Purnima Jani (PAN No.ADAPJ4898G), Sona L. Pagi (PAN No.ASLPP6866E), Priti Trivedi (PAN No.AGHPT1673M), Nilesh Patel (PAN No.ASKPP8292K), Swati Bhatt (PAN No. ALGPB0534K) and Digant Trivedi (PAN No.AFMPT6205M). In view of the matter and by keeping the principle of natural justice along with Article 265 of the Constitution of India, I am of the view that the genuineness of the confirmation and other attendant circumstances/factual matrix needs examination at the hands of the ld. Assessing Officer. Even otherwise, no person should be condemned unheard. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is remanded back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee and after providing due opportunity of being heard be decided in accordance with law. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Finally, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representative of both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 19/01/2016.

MANIBEN PAEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(2), MUMBAI