9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of interest under section 40(a)(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained credits. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Disallowance of Interest under Section 40(a)(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The first issue concerns whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of interest made under section 40(a)(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 6,32,280. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that out of the interest claimed by the assessee at Rs. 14,88,907, an amount of Rs. 8,00,013 was paid to persons covered under section 40A(2)(b) at a rate of 21%. The AO deemed this rate excessive and allowed interest at 18%, disallowing Rs. 1,14,288. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who allowed the claim, relying on the ITAT, Amritsar Bench's decisions in Anil Kumar v. IAC and Omkarmal Gaurishanti v. ITO, which had allowed higher interest rates. The revenue then appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing its recent order in Asstt. CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Malhotra and other cases where interest rates of up to 24% were deemed allowable for persons covered under section 40A(2)(b). The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency, noting that similar interest rates had been accepted in previous and subsequent years. Hence, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order and rejected the revenue's appeal on this ground. 2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Credits The second issue pertains to the deletion of an addition made for unexplained credits. The assessee claimed to have received a loan of Rs. 1 lakh via demand draft. When asked to prove the source and genuineness of the loan, the assessee provided a confirmation from M/s. Aneja Footwear Agency, including the Permanent Account Number. However, the AO found this insufficient as the bank account details were not provided, and added Rs. 2 lakhs plus interest of Rs. 10,819. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting further evidence submitted during the appeal, including a bank account copy and an affidavit from M/s. Aneja Footwear Agency. The revenue contended that this evidence was not presented during the assessment and was admitted by the CIT(A) without following Rule 46A procedures. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had admitted fresh evidence without recording reasons or allowing the AO to examine it, violating Rule 46A and natural justice principles. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh consideration, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing both parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Conclusion The Tribunal's decision resulted in: 1. Upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the interest disallowance under section 40(a)(2)(b), affirming the principle of consistency. 2. Setting aside the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unexplained credits and remanding the case for fresh adjudication, ensuring adherence to Rule 46A and natural justice. The appeal by the revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
