Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Per N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 29.05.2012 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. The grievance of the Revenue read as under: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.55,32,215/- claimed under the head 'Income from House Property' without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself contended that the loans were utilized for repayment of earlier loans from sister concern and the said interest was not covered u/s.24(b) of the Act. 2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,68,255/- u/s.14A of the IT Act, 1961, r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962, without appreciating the fact that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., the actual earning of exempt income is not necessary for disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A of the Act, relatable to the investment capable of generating exempt income. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 3 Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,45,00,000/- u/s.68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits, without appreciating
2 M/s. Wellknown Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the fact that the identity and credit worthiness of the claimed investors and the genuineness of the transaction being share application money was not established and the additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) deserved to be rejected u/r. 46A of the I. T. Rules, 1962, since remand report of the A.O. on the said additional evidence was not called for by the CIT(A)."
At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issues raised by the Revenue in the appeal under consideration have elaborately been discussed by the officer in the order dated 01.04.15 made under section 143(3) of the Act read with section 153A. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that since the issues have been accepted by the Revenue in the order made under section 153A, therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld.
The Ld. D.R. fairly conceded to this and stated that issues raised vide ground Nos.1 & 3 of the present appeal are covered by the subsequent order made under section 153A of the Act and in so far as issues raised vide ground No.2 are concerned in the subsequent order, the same additions have been enhanced. The Ld. D.R. fairly conceded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) needs no interference.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the assessment order dated 01.04.15 made under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. We find force in the claim of the Ld. Counsel. The issues raised in the present appeal have been considered in the subsequent assessment order. Therefore, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in the present appeal needs no interference.
Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.12.2015.