2015 (11) TMI 731 - AT - Income Tax

Deductions as claimed by assessee U/S 57 and 80C denied - invoking the provisions of section 115D - Held that - In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order does not meet the requirements of law. The specific grievances of the assessee though have been reproduced in the impugned order however while arrived at a conclusion why they cannot to be accepted has not been addressed. The statutory mandate of section 250(6) of the Act is found to be not fulfilled. In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored back to the file to the CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The said order was pronounced in the open Court. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deductions claimed under Sections 57 and 80C.
2. Applicability of Chapter XII-A provisions and the requirement for a declaration under Section 115-I.
3. Taxation rate applied to the assessee's income.
4. Alleged inaccuracies in the Assessing Officer's order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Deductions Claimed under Sections 57 and 80C:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,77,287 under Section 57 and Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 80C. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 115D, which disallows any expenditure or allowance in computing the investment income of a non-resident Indian. The AO observed that the assessee had shown "income from other sources" amounting to Rs. 4,13,758 and had claimed expenses of Rs. 1,77,287. Additionally, the assessee had made substantial investments in mutual funds. The AO disallowed these deductions, leading to an assessed income of Rs. 4,13,758.

2. Applicability of Chapter XII-A Provisions and the Requirement for a Declaration under Section 115-I:
The assessee argued that she had implicitly elected not to be governed by Chapter XII-A by filing her return and claiming deductions. She pointed out that the new annexure-less, paperless, and e-file return formats did not allow for any special declaration as required by Section 115-I. The AO, however, held that Section 115D overrides all other provisions unless a written option is exercised under Section 115-I. Since the assessee did not file such a declaration, the AO applied the provisions of Chapter XII-A.

3. Taxation Rate Applied to the Assessee's Income:
The AO taxed the assessee's income at a flat rate of 20% as per Section 115E, which prescribes the tax rates for non-resident Indians. The assessee contended that the AO incorrectly applied Section 115E without considering her implied election not to be governed by Chapter XII-A. She argued that her filing of the return itself should be considered an implicit election against the application of Section 115D.

4. Alleged Inaccuracies in the Assessing Officer's Order:
The assessee highlighted several inaccuracies in the AO's order. For instance, the AO mentioned a non-existent Section 151-I and incorrectly stated that the assessee agreed to the denial of the Rs. 1,00,000 deduction under Section 57, which was actually claimed under Section 80C. The assessee also pointed out that the AO's order did not address her specific grievances and that the initial period of e-filing returns did not provide a place for exercising the said option.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately address the specific grievances of the assessee. The statutory mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act was not fulfilled. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 23rd September 2015.

← Previous Next →