TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 7166/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2014 - Shri D. Manmohan, VP And Shri Sanjay Arora, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Vipul Joshi Shri Mayank Thosar For the Respondent : Shri B. P. K. Panda ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai ( CIT(A) for short) dated 28.09.2012, partly allowing the assessee s appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated 27.12.2011. 2. The assessee s appeals raises two issues, which we shall tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.1,05,283/- in respect of PPF interest. The details of bonds submitted only shows investment. However, there are no details regarding credit of interest and explanation regarding as to how the amount of Rs.5,12,216/- was credited to P L account. In view of these facts, the disallowance of interest of Rs.1,05,283/- is deleted. However, balance amount of Rs.4,04,445/- (509728 105283) is confirmed. This ground of appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. We are completely unable to appreciate the Revenue s case. The ledger accounts clearly show the receipt of interest under the account head interest on bond (tax free) (PB pg.33), and which stands transferred directly to the capital account. The same is thus clearly accounted for. The trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter is clear and unambiguous. The initial onus to show, with reference to its accounts, that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure in relation to an income not forming part of its total income is on the assessee. Once the assessee so does, it is for the Revenue to show as to why it considers the assessee s claim as not satisfactory and, thus, as unacceptable. Reference for the purpose may be made to the decisions in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom) and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi). In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A), on considering the assessee s claim, observes it to have been incurred expenditure on salary (Rs.5.31 lacs); assistance charges (Rs.3.20 lacs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive of the quantum of such income, done precious little. The Revenue has also, we observe, not called upon it to substantiate its claim/s, even as it observes the assessee to have incurred expenditure, which could, if only in part, be relatable to such income. In fact, the expenditure stands incurred on legal and professional charges (at Rs.2.08 lacs) as well, which could also relate to such income. That is, the provisions of section 14A(2) and 14A(3), though procedural, are to be taken to their logical conclusion. It would not suffice for the assessee to rest its case merely by stating non-incurring of any expenditure, and neither is the Revenue expected to proceed solely on presumption, in disregard of the merits of the assessee s case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
