2019 (11) TMI 859 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance in respect of interest paid to NBFC without deduction to tax - HELD THAT - We restore the issue to the file of the AO. It shall be open to the assessee to furnish necessary evidences to show that payee has filed returns and has included the receipt from the assessee for the purposes of taxation. The AO may also make suitable inquiries in this regard and decide the issue in accordance with law. Income from sale of two properties resulting into double taxation - HELD THAT - We find apparent justification in the plea of the assessee. The same income cannot be taxed in two assessment years simultaneously as per the scheme of taxation. Thus, while the assessee may not be permitted to defer the tax liability of income of the present year to the next year, the Revenue at the same time cannot sit over the taxes wrongly paid for the income already assessed in the preceding assessment year AY 2011-12 and refusing to refund the same in AY 2012-13. The action of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside on this score and the AO is directed to refund the taxes collected in AY 2012-13 in accordance with law after ascertaining the fact of the taxes recovered on the same income in AY 2011-12. Mis-match in the rent income offered as per return of income vis- -vis income accrued reported by the payer as reflected in annual statement Form No.26AS of the assessee - HELD THAT - Assessee while addressing the issue submitted that while the payer has wrongly declared the rent income of 13 months in Form No.26AS in AY 2011-12 in question, the assessee has declared actual income for 12 months. The prayer has committed mistake in the subsequent year and declared rental income for 11 months whereas the assessee has declared rental income again for 12 months. Thus, the mis-match of one month rent is purely an accounting mistake attributable to the prayer for which the assessee should not be penalized. As submitted that entire exercise is tax neutral. AR for the assessee however at the same time submitted that the issue may be sent back to the AO for necessary factual verification in this regard, if considered expedient. Averments made on behalf of the assessee to be just and proper. The issue is remitted back to the file of the AO for factual verification of the aspects and re-determination of the issue in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the assessee in this regard. Disallowance of estimated disallowance of 20% of interest expenditure incurred of car loan as personal in nature - HELD THAT - We are not impressed by the late challenge of this aforesaid issue without putting it across before the CIT(A). Additional ground towards disallowance of interest expenditure cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage where necessary evidence towards sole user of car for business purposes is not available on record. The assessee cannot raise additional ground without good reason at a belated stage without showing its bonafides. The additional ground raised is thus dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest expense for non-deduction of tax at source.
2. Treatment of sale transactions of properties in different assessment years.
3. Treatment of rent income discrepancy.
4. Additional ground of disallowance of car loan interest as personal expense.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of interest expense for non-deduction of tax at source
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of interest expense paid to Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. without tax deduction. The CIT(A) relied on a Delhi High Court decision, holding the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) as retrospective. The matter was referred back to the AO to verify if the recipients included the payments in their tax returns. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Delhi High Court's ruling. The issue was restored to the AO for further verification based on the High Court's decision.

Issue 2: Treatment of sale transactions of properties in different assessment years
The assessee sold two properties in AY 2011-12 but mistakenly accounted for them in AY 2012-13. The AO collected taxes for both years. The ITAT ruled that the same income cannot be taxed in two years and directed the AO to refund the taxes collected in AY 2012-13. The CIT(A)'s decision was set aside, and the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: Treatment of rent income discrepancy
A discrepancy in rent income declaration was noted, with the payer reporting income for 13 months in Form No.26AS for AY 2011-12. The assessee declared income for 12 months. The ITAT remitted the issue to the AO for factual verification and directed a re-determination in accordance with the law. The discrepancy was attributed to an accounting mistake by the payer.

Issue 4: Additional ground of disallowance of car loan interest
The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the disallowance of 20% of interest expenditure on a car loan as personal in nature. The ITAT dismissed the additional ground, stating that it was raised belatedly without proper evidence of business use of the car. The appeal was partly allowed, and the additional ground was rejected.

In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment addressed various issues related to tax deductions, treatment of income, and discrepancies in reporting, providing detailed analysis and directions for further verification and resolution.