Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,, ... vs Jayant Maniklal Lunawat,, Pune on 22 April, 2019
आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण "बी" न्यायऩीठ ऩण
ु े में ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE
श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष ।
BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.618/PUN/2017
यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle - 2, Pune
.......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant
बनाम / V/s.
Shri Jayant Maniklal Lunawat,
1206/B/22, Lunawat Court,
Shivajinagar, Pune - 411005
PAN : AAYPL3026H
......प्रत्यथी / Respondent
Assessee by : Shri Shrenik Gandhi
Revenue by : Shri P.S. Naik
सन
ु वाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16-04-2019
घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 22-04-2019
आदे श / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune dated 25-10-2016 for the assessment year 2009-10.
2. The Revenue has raised following grounds assailing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) :
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction of interest expenses & legal and professional expenses, which needed to be capitalized and added back in the WIP.2 ITA No.618/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2009-10
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the issue of capitalization of interest expenses & legal and professional expenses in his order and allowing these expenses only on the basis that TDR trading business cannot be distinguished from routine business.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the assessee is following project completion method in respect of the project undertaken and therefore, all the expenses including interest expense and legal/professional expenses relating to such projects can only be allowed in the year in which revenue is recognized and therefore, the said expenses have to be included in the Closing WIP.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or omit any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of the appellate proceedings."
3. Shri P.S. Naik representing the Department submitted that the assessee had claimed interest and financial charges amounting to Rs.87,77,780/- and legal and professional charges Rs.15,90,742/- as expenditure. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts of the case held the expenditure towards payment of interest and financial charges as capital in nature. Similarly, the legal and professional charges paid by the assessee were also held to be on capital account. In First Appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed the above additions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the additions without assigning any reasons in a non-speaking order.
4. On the other hand Shri Shrenik Gandhi appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
5. Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. The assessee is a builder and developer. The assessee is also engaged in trading of TDR. The assessee had claimed interest expenditure, legal and professional charges on revenue account. The Assessing Officer held the same to be on capital account. In first appeal, the Commissioner of 3 ITA No.618/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2009-10 Income Tax (Appeals) reversed the findings of Assessing Officer. A perusal of impugned order shows that the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is sketchy and a non-speaking order. The contention of the assessee is that interest and financial charges and legal and professional charges are unrelated to TDR business. Since, the assessee has prepared consolidated Profit and Loss Account for his entire business activities the facts are not clearly emerging. Without commenting on the merits of the additions, we deem it appropriate to restore this file to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for passing speaking and detailed order. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
6. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(डी. करुणाकरा राव/D. Karunakara Rao) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy)
ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 22nd April, 2019.
RK आदे श की प्रयिलऱवऩ अग्रेवषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant.
2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयक् ु त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-3, Pune
4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune
5. ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, "बी" बेंच, ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, "B" Bench, Pune.
6. गाडड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File.
//सत्यावऩत प्रयत // True Copy// आदे शानुसार / BY ORDER, यनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune