Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Karnataka Road Development ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 8 June, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH, BENGALURU
BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
and
SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sl. ITA No.& Appellant Respondent
No. Asst. year
1 703/Bang/2017 Karnataka Road Development Asst. Commissioner of
(2008-09) Corporation,1st Floor, 16/J, Income-tax, Circle 11(5),
Miller Tank Bed Area, Bengaluru.
Thimmaiah Road, Cross,
Bengaluru-560052.
PAN:AABCK2261R
2 322/Bang/2017 -do- -do-
(2009-10)
3 704/Bang/2017 -do- -do-
(2010-11)
4 705/Bang/2017 -do- -do-
(2011-12)
5 706/Bang/2017 -do- -do-
(2012-13)
6 805/Bang/2017 Deputy Commissioner of Karnataka Road Development
(2008-09) Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Corporation,
Bengaluru. Bengaluru.
7 426/Bang/2017 Asst. Commissioner of -do-
(2009-10) Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(1)
Bengaluru.
8 806/Bang/2017 Deputy Commissioner of -do-
(2010-11) Income-tax, Circle
4(1)(1),Bengaluru.
9 807/Bang/2017 -do- -do-
(2011-12)
10 808/Bang/2017 -do- -do-
(2012-12)
AND
Sl. C.O. No. Cross-Objector Respondent
No.
1 44/Bang/2018 Karnataka Road Deputy Commissioner
(In ITA 805/Bang/2017) Development Corporation, of Income-tax,
(2008-09) Bengaluru. Circle 4(1)(1),B'lore.
2 48/Bang/2018 -do- Asst. Commissioner
(In ITA 426/Bang/2017) of Income-tax,
(2009-10) Circle 4(1)(1),B'lore.
3 45/Bang/2018 -do- -do-
(In ITA 806/Bang/2017)
(2010-11)
4 46/Bang/2018 -do- -do-
(In ITA807/Bang/2017)
(2011-12)
5 47/Bang/2018
(In ITA 808/Bang/2017
(2012-13)
ITA Nos.703.....808/Bang/2017
Page 2 of 3
Assessee by : None.
Revenue by : Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)
Date of hearing : 04/06/2018
Date of pronouncement : 08/06/2018
O R D E R
Per BENCH:
These are cross appeals by the assessee as well as the revenue directed against the respective orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, for assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-
13. The assessee also filed cross objections for assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12.
2. At the time of hearing of the appeals and cross objections nobody appeared for assessee and there was no request for adjournment also. Shri B.R.Ramesh, learned Departmental Representative was present.
3. We considered the matter and are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its cases. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 and also decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT v. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320, we dismiss the appeals and the cross objections filed by the assessee as infructuous for non-prosecution.
4. The revenue raised the following common grounds of appeal in its appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13:
1. "The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed to law and the fact and circumstances of the case.
2. On facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has reduced the capital expenditure incurred in the form of interest on loan with the interest income offered under the head income from other source.
3. On the facts of the case, the Ld Cl'l(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has taken loan for the purpose of construction of bridges which are under construction and any expenditure in ITA Nos.703.....808/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 3 the form of interest on loan for this purpose has to be capitalized and not eligible for set off against the interest income.
4. For these and other grounds that may he urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT (A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may he reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored."
5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and / or delete any of the grounds that may be urged."
The only issue raised in the appeals filed by the revenue is with regard to allowance of interest on loan utilized for the purpose of acquiring capital assets. In view of the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short], interest on loans utilized for the purpose of capital assets cannot be allowed as deduction unless and until assets are put to use. Undisputedly in the present case, the assets were still in work-in-progress which goes to show that the assets are not put to use. Therefore, we allow the grounds of appeal of the revenue.
5. In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 8th June, 2018 Sd/- sd/-
(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (INTURI RAMA RAO)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place : Bengaluru.
D a t e d : 08/06/2018
srinivasulu, sps
Copy to :
1 Appellant
2 Respondent
3 CIT(A)
4 CIT
5 DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
6 Guard file
By order
Senior Private Secretary
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Bangalore