9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rused the material available on record. The AO noticed that the assessee debited an amount of Rs. 2,36,61,522/- out of which Rs. 1,63,23,346/- paid interest to Reliance Capital. According to the AO, no TDS was deducted on such interest payment. The AO asked the assessee to explain why such interest paid to Reliance Capital should not be disallowed for non deduction of TDS. It was explained by the assessee that the Reliance Capital is a Banking Company and no TDS is deductible. According to the AO on an examination from the official website of Reliance Capital is a Non Banking Finance Company and placing reliance of the Chandigarh Benches of the ITAT in the case of Sh. Umesh Trehan Vs. The Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1022/Chd/2012 the AO a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly, there was no evidences even before this Tribunal showing that resident payee the Reliance Capital furnished return of income taking into the interest as its income by computing in the return of income and no certificate as required under law was filed to that effect. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh adjudication as indicated above. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 4. Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue against the deletion of addition made u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired under Rule 46A. The evidences filed before us from the Page Nos. 49 to 51 were admittedly not before the AO, therefore, the CIT(A) did not follow the procedure as laid down in Rule 46A whenever the new evidences which were not before the AO comes to its knowledge. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh adjudication and to decide the issue by following the due procedure established under law. Thus, ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is relating to deletion of addition made u/s. 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee to furnish Return of Income, Balance sheet and Bank Statement but no such details relevant to the addition to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction filed before the AO nor before the CIT(A), even before us. Mere giving Names and Addresses of the lenders are not sufficient to prove all the ingredients of section 68 of the Act, in our opinion apart from identity other ingredients like creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction required to be proved in support of claim u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the AO failed to examine the said lenders u/s. 131 of the Act but however in our opinion the CIT(A) also failed to exercise said jurisdiction by remanding the matter to the file of AO. Therefore, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
