2022 (4) TMI 501 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made on account of notional interest on interest free deposit s received by the assessee - HELD THAT - As is evident and also admitted by the learned AR that the aforesaid decision in Tip Top Typography 2014 (8) TMI 356 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT was not pointed out and therefore not considered by the Tribunal. Thus, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal had no benefit of the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court while deciding the assessee s appeal for assessment year 2012 13 and accordingly addition was upheld on the basis of security deposit received by the assessee by following decision rendered in K. Streetlite Electric Corporation 2010 (10) TMI 742 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT The decision in Tip Top Typography (supra) is rendered by Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court and is thus binding on us. However, in the present case, the addition has been made following the approach adopted in the assessment year 2012 13. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in light of the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Tip Top Typography (supra). Accordingly, ground nos.1 to 4 raised in assessee s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?17,01,000 out of the total addition of ?27,48,594 made by the Assessing Officer.
2. Estimation of additional property income at 9% on the interest-free deposit of ?95,00,000.
3. Treatment of Leave and License fee as property income.
4. Estimation of 9% on an amount of ?1,75,00,000 received as interest-free deposit.
5. Addition of ?193,400 paid as interest on loans used for purchasing shares.
6. Allegations that the order is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice.
7. Allegations that the order is based on surmises and conjectures.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?17,01,000 out of ?27,48,594:
The assessee contested the retention and confirmation of ?17,01,000 out of the total addition of ?27,48,594 made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had added 10% of the security deposit received by the assessee under the head "Income from Other Sources," following the approach adopted in the assessment year 2012-13, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].

2. Estimation of Additional Property Income at 9% on ?95,00,000:
The CIT(A) estimated additional property income calculated at 9% on the interest-free deposit of ?95,00,000 received by the assessee from the Leave and Licensee of the office premises. This was treated as additional Annual Letting Value under the head "Income from House Property."

3. Treatment of Leave and License Fee as Property Income:
The CIT(A) treated the Leave and License fee received by the assessee for tenanted office premises as property income. The assessee had declared the balance amount after reducing the rent paid by her as Lease and License fees under "Income from Other Sources."

4. Estimation of 9% on ?1,75,00,000:
The CIT(A) estimated 9% on an amount of ?1,75,00,000 received as an interest-free deposit for giving on rental basis her residential flat and treated ?15,75,000 as additional property income. The CIT(A) followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2012-13.

5. Addition of ?193,400 Paid as Interest on Loans:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ?193,400 paid by the assessee as interest on loans raised for purchasing shares, which were her stock in trade. The assessee did not press this ground during the hearing, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

6. Allegations of the Order Being Bad in Law:
The assessee alleged that the order appealed against is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice. However, these grounds were general in nature and did not require separate adjudication in view of the findings on other issues.

7. Allegations of the Order Being Based on Surmises and Conjectures:
The assessee alleged that the order is based on surmises and conjectures. These grounds were also general in nature and did not require separate adjudication.

Separate Judgments:
The Tribunal noted that the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Tip Top Typography (2014) was not considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2012-13. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for de novo adjudication in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Tip Top Typography.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The issues related to the addition of notional interest on interest-free deposits were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. The ground related to the addition of ?193,400 paid as interest on loans was dismissed as not pressed. General grounds alleging the order being bad in law and based on surmises and conjectures were not separately adjudicated. The additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee was also dismissed as not pressed.

← Previous Next →