TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical purpose. Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 243C is consequential - we allow the appeal of the revenue for statistical purpose and direct the AO to re-compute the interest liability after reducing the amount of tax deductible at source and decide as per the provisions of law. - ITA No 5487, 5497 /MUM/2011, 6335/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07, 2008-09 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2016 - Shri B.R.Baskaran And Shri Ram Lal Negi, JJ. Appellant by : Shri. Dharmesh Shah Respondent by : Shri. Dr. P. Daniel. ORDER Ram Lal Negi, These appeals have been filed by the assessee and the revenue in respect of assessee Smt. Deepika A. Mehta for the Asst. years 2006-07 2008-09. The assessee has filed ITA 5487/M/2011 against ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, however, confirmed certain additions including addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- on account of personal drawings and ₹ 1,53,80,576/- on account of interest expenses, made by the AO. 3. Still aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised the following effective grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has to fail to appreciate that the re-opening of assessment u/s 148 is invalid and bad in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that no income from attached assets can be assessed in the hands of the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been considered in the said case. Hence, the issues involved in the present case are required to be decided accordingly. On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the concurrent findings of the authorities below submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity to interfere with. 6. We have perused the material placed before us in the light of the respective submissions of the parties. Ground No 3 pertains to addition on account of personal drawings. We notice that the coordinate Bench has dealt with the identical issue in Smt. Rasila Mehta vs DCIT Mumbai (supra) and the Bench restricted the addition to 50% of the addition sustained by the CIT(A), holding as under:- We have given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2139,2140 and 2141/Mum/2013 have followed the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal given in common group cases of Hitesh Mehta at para 2.3 of the order and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate Bench, we restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Before closing this issue, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the issue of interest expenditure is pending before the Hon ble Special Court. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the proceedings in which the the said issue of interest was issued by the custodian have been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the liabilities of payment of interest under these section of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The sole grievance of the revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that no interest could be levied in the present case u/s 234A, 234B and 243C of the Act. The Ld. DR brought to our notice that this issue has been decided by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in favour of the revenue and against the assessee to which the Ld. AR fairly conceded. 3. We further notice that this issue has also come up before the ITAT Mumbai in one of the group cases viz., M/s Harsh Estate Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1035,1033 and 3464/M/2013 and the Tribunal allowed the issue in favour of the revenue, however, directed the Assessing Officer to recompute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition on account of personal household expenses of ₹ 3,00,000/-. 5. The Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234A 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The Ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the income assessed in the hands of the appellant were subjected to the provisions of TDS and hence on the said amount of tax no interest can be computed u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 2. Ld. AR (AR) submitted that the assessee does not want to contest Ground Nos. 1, 2. Accordingly, we dismiss Ground No 1 and 2, of the present appeal as not pressed. 3. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
