Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Raj Kumar Singal, Chandigarh vs Acit, Chandigarh on 21 March, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES 'B', CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER&
Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 1338 & 1339/Chd/2016
Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2010-11
Sh. Raj Kumar Singal, Vs. The Asst. CIT, Circle 5(1),
SCO 15, Sector 26, Chandigarh
Chandigarh
PAN No. BJMPS3568P
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Sh. B.M. Monga, Advocate &
Sh. Rohit Vohra, Advocate
Respondent By : Sh. Manjit Singh, SR DR
Date of hearing : 21.03.2018
Date of Pronouncement:21.03.2018
ORDER
Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:
The above captioned appealsrelating to the different assessment years have been preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)']-2, Gurgaon dated 29.09.2016.
2. Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, these were heard together and are beingdecided by this common order.
3. In ITA No. 1338/Chd/2016, the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-
ITA Nos. 1339 & 1338/Chd/2016 Raj Kumar Singal, Chandigarh 2
1. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,44,193/- under the head income from other sources by not accepting that the land being appurtenant to building is to be treated as house property entitling for a deduction of 30%.
3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal No.3 raised by the assessee in its memo of appeal before CIT(A) regarding disallowance of claim of assessee u/s 24(b) in respect of House No. 147, sector 28, Chandigarh.
4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing officer as well as CIT(A) is not justified while appreciating the fact that interest on borrowed capital amounting to Rs. 2,34,255/- and Rs. 64,613/- should have been allowed out of rental income which was inadvertently claimed in the computation of income from house property declared in respect of land at Zirakpur through actually,it is in respect of # 147, Sector 28, Chandigarh Whereas in ITA No. 1339/Chd/2016, the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-
1. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,67,581/- under the head income from other sources by not accepting that the land being appurtenant to building is to be treated as house property entitling for a deduction of 30%.
ITA Nos. 1339 & 1338/Chd/2016 Raj Kumar Singal, Chandigarh 3
3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified while allowing the statutory & legal claim of Rs. 8,30,209/- of the assessee u/s 57(iv) without appreciating the documentary evidence produced before Assessing officer & CIT(A).
4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified while holding that it is not clear whether the assessee has offered this income to tax in its computation of income without appreciating the fact that assessee had declared full amount of interest on compensation amounting to Rs. 16,60,418/- as 'income from other sources'
3. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties.
4. Ground No.1 raisedin both the appeals is general does not require any adjudication.
5. So far as ground No.2 in both the appeals is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not addressed any arguments in this respect, hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A) in so faras the issue raised vide ground No.2 in both the appeals is concerned.
6. Now coming to ground Nos. 3 &4 of the appeal in ITA No. 1338/Chd/2016, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order and has stated that though these issues raised vide grounds of appeal have been specifically taken before CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any adjudication / finding on these issues. Therefore, ITA Nos. 1339 & 1338/Chd/2016 Raj Kumar Singal, Chandigarh 4 Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issues be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication.
7. The Ld. DR has also not objected to the remanding of these issues to the file of the CIT(A) as the same have remained un-adjudicated at the end of Ld. CIT(A). In the fairness of things, theissuesraised vide ground Nos.3 &4 are restored to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the decide ground Nos.3& 4 of the appeal in accordance with law.
8. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1338/Chd/2016 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
9. So far as ground Nos. 3 & 4 in ITA No. 1339/Chd/2016 are concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to page 11 of the impugned order wherein the issue raised vide ground No.3 before us has been discussed in para 11, i.e. ground No.4 of appeal before CIT(A)whereinthe Ld. CIT(A) has decided thisissue against the assessee observing that the assessee had not filed any documentary evidence in support of its claim. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to paper book page 7, which is a copy of letter dated 10.4.2017 vide which the assessee has requested the Assessing officer to furnish the copy of documents submitted during the assessment proceedings, in response to which, the Assessing officer supplied copies of necessary documents placed on record at S. No. 8 to 14 which includes the copies of the award No. 573 of U.T. Chandigarh onpayment of enhancement of compensation onStructure as awarded by ADG, Chandigarh.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that the documents were directly related to the issue raised vide ground No.3, however, the Ld. ITA Nos. 1339 & 1338/Chd/2016 Raj Kumar Singal, Chandigarh 5 CIT(A) has failed to look into the matter. He in view of this,it was submitted that the issues raised vide ground Nos.3& 4 be restored to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. In view of this, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication.
10. The Ld. DR has not objected to the above.
11. Therefore, the ground raised vide grounds 3 & 4 are restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partl y allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated :21.03.2018
Rkk
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR