TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come having been categorically taxed as undisclosed income of the assessees firm, we fail to understand why it should be taxed in the hands of the assessee also, which would only result in taxing the same income twice. The observation of the Hon ble Settlement Commission on which the Revenue has relied for dismissing assessee's claim, that they refrain from making any comment in respect of claim of utilization of additional income of M/s Rohit Traders in the hands of partners, in our view, only serves the limited purpose of the Commission refraining from commenting on assessee's which were not there before them. This observation, we find, does not negate the admitted and undisputed fact of surrender of the impugned capital gains of the assessee in the hands of M/s Rohit Traders. We direct the deletion of addition made on account of Long Term Capital Gains and expenditure incurred on account of the same in the hands of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of deduction on account of interest paid on housing loan u/s 24, and repayment of the principal amount of housing loan deduction on account of interest earned on saving bank account u/s 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Smt.C.Chandrakanta, CIT DR ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The above appeals relate to the same assessee and have been preferred by her against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- 3, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) both dated 07 .06 .2019 relating to assessment years 2015 - 16 and 2016 - 17 respectively, passed u/s 153A(1)(b) r.w. s. 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act . 2. It was common ground that the issues involved in both the appeals were identical, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed off by this common and consolidated order. We shall be taking up first the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1174/Chd/ 2019 for assessment year 2015 - 16. 3. Brief facts relating to the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 (1) of the Act was carried out on 10 - 03 - 2016 on the business and residential premises of M/s Om Sons Group of cases, which included the assessee. In response to notice issued u/s 153 A of the Act, the assessee filed return declaring income of ₹ 6,43, 630 /- after claiming deduction u/s 80 C of the Act of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e were not pressed before us and the same are therefore treated as dismissed. 7. Vis- - vis the ground Nos. 1 and 5,the same it was pointed out, relate to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on account of Long Term Capital Gains treated as bogus, amounting to ₹ 17,19,989 /- and the alleged expenditure incurred in connection with the same amounting to ₹ 1, 34,027 /. 8. Brief facts relating to the issue are that during assessment proceedings the AO noted that information had been received by the Investigation Wing, Chandigarh, from the Directorate of Income Tax(Investigation)- Kolkata about large scale tax evasion in the form of Bogus Long Term Capital Gain claimed by various beneficiaries of the Om Sons Group through the use of penny stocks being sold/purchased to facilitate these transactions, which included the assessee also. That the amount had been received on sale of shares in the penny stock i.e M/s Cressanda Solutions Limited. The AO noted that the Investigation Wing Kolkata had carried out Survey operation u/s 133 A of the Act in case of M/ s Manu Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. on 19. 04. 2015, wherein statement of Shri Ritesh Jain was recorded in which he stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment years 2010 - 11 to 2016 - 17 and the acceptance of the same by the Settlement commission vide its order u/s 245A(4) of the Act, relevant portion of which was placed before us at P. B 48 - 50. Our attention was specifically drawn to paper book page no 27,pointing out therefrom the specific surrender made on account of Long Term Capital Gains on shares, returned by the assessee M/s Anjula Goel, claiming the same as exempt u/s 10 (38) of the Act. It was pointed out that it had been admitted before the Hon ble Settlement Commission that the same represented only accommodation entry obtained by the assessee partner, but the funds had been provided by the firm out of its undisclosed income which was thus being surrendered. The contents of the same are reproduced hereunder: 1) AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO PARTNER During the course of A/Ys 2014- 15, Ms. Anjila Goel, a Partner of the Appellant Firm, while filing her income tax return, declared exempt income u/ s 10(38), on account of Long Term Capital Gains on shares in the following manner:- Assessment Year Amount (Rs) 2014- 15 31,80,857 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s order discussed above. Further, the cognizance of revised return filed declaring LTG as its income and payment of taxes cannot be ignored. There is no provision of the Act which prohibits the AO from doing so. The second proviso to section 153A(l]of the Act only prohibits the AO to pass any assessment after search with respect to pending assessment and the AO is empowered to issue notice u/s 153A to assess or reassess the total income of six assessment year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made. Further, reliance is placed on the case of CIT vs Sun Engg Works Ltd 198 ITR 297(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the proceedings u/s 147 are for the benefit of the revenue and not for benefit of the assessee. Applying the same principle, proceedings u/s 153A cannot be construed to be for the benefit of assessee, so as to file a return on reduced income, by excluding income which has already been shown in the return filed suo moto and taxes paid on the said income, as in the case of the appellant. The surrender offered on behalf of the appellant has in fact been incorporated in the return filed by the appellant after recording ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to ₹ 17, 19, 989/- and ₹ 1, 34,027 /- respectively. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 5 raised by the assessee, therefore, stand allowed. 17. Ground Nos.6 and 7 raised by the assessee before us relate to claim of deduction on account of interest paid on housing loan u/s 24 of the Act of ₹ 2, 00, 000 /-, and repayment of the principal amount of housing loan of ₹ 1, 50,000 /- deduction on account of interest earned on saving bank account of ₹ 10,000 /- u/s 80C 80 TTA respectively. The same, we find, were denied to the assessee for the reason that the necessary documentary evidences were not f iled. 18. Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that vis a vis deduction claimed of interest paid on housing loan u/s 24 of the Act and repayment of housing loan u/s 80 C of the Act, both the authorities below had failed to appreciate the assessee s contention that the house was jointly owned by the assessee with her husband and the loan also had been jointly taken, but the interest certificate had been issued by the bank in the name of the first owner, i.e the husband of the assessee. He contended that it had also been pointed out that the loan inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us the Ld.DR was unable to point out any discrepancy in the said documents. What emerges therefore as fact is that the assessee was co- owner of property on which housing loan taken was being repaid by her. This fact is corroborated by the bank certificate placed before us at P. B 38, certifying home loan to be in the name of the assessee along-with her husband. 24. In view of the same, the contention of the Revenue that the assessee had failed to establish its claim of deduction on account of repayment of housing loan and interest thereon, merits no consideration. The voluminous evidences filed by the assessee, as stated above, clearly evidence her claim. And all the above documents were there before the lower authorities, who we find have conveniently ignored the same, placing entire thrust on the interest certificate issued by the bank for rejecting the assessees claim. 25. Considering the entire facts and circumstances alongwith the evidences filed, we hold that the assessees had duly evidenced its claim for deduction u/s 24 of interest on housing loan of ₹ 2,00, 000 /- and u/s 80C of repayment of housing loan of ₹ 1,50,000 /-. The AO is accordingly di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
