Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Vasai Roller Flour Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 13(3)(2), Mumbai on 7 February, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"F" Bench, Mumbai
Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Sandeep Gosain (JM)
I.T.A. No. 672/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14)
M/s. Vasai Roller Flour DCIT Circle
Mills P. Ltd. Vs. 13(3)(2)
Plot No. 9, Ganesh Plot Room No. 229
Owner Association Aayakar Bhavan
Ramchandra Lane M.K. Road
Kanchpade, Malad West Mumbai-400020.
Mumbai-400 064.
PAN :AAACV1783G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by None
Department by Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
Date of Hearing 7.2.2019
Date of Pronouncement 7.2.2019
ORDER
Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by learned CIT(A)-21, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2013-
14. Solitary issue urged by the assessee in this appeal relates to disallowance of Rs.1,65,737/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has since been confirmed by learned CIT(A).
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by registered post and the same was acknowledged by the assessee also. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.
3. We have heard learned DR and perused the record. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 42.07 lakhs as interest expenditure on various loans. On verification of the same, it was found that out of the above said amount, 2 assessee has paid interest of Rs. 87,851/- on car loan and interest of Rs. 77,886/- on tempo loan taken from two finance companies named M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd. It was noticed that the assessee has not deducted tax at source from the interest expenditure so paid. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed both interest expenditure referred above aggregating to Rs.1,65,737/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us.
4. We have heard learned DR and perused the record. From the order passed by learned CIT(A), we noticed that the Assessing Officer has made an identical disallowance in A.Y. 2012-13 and the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 8.8.2016 passed in ITA No. 5437/Mum/2015 has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to verify whether recipient had showed the said amount in the return of income and accordingly decide the issue.
5. Since issue relating to identical addition has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that this issue may also be restored to be file of the Assessing Officer for examining it afresh. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining it afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 7.2.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANDEEP GOSAIN) (B.R.BASKARAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated : 7/2/2019
3
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Senior Private Secretary)
PS ITAT, Mumbai