9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thereafter, the assessee claims that she sold house property and paid the taxes due with interest on returned income before her death during 18.03.2015 to 12.08.2015. Thus especially where the assessee had demised, it is deemed fit to admit the appeals of the assessee and decide the issue on merits. We do not find any merit in setting aside the issue to the CIT(A) and proceed to decide present appeals. Disallowance of bank charges as expenses while calculating the interest income for the respective years - claim of bank charges debited by the foreign bank account maintained by the assessee with HSBC Bank, Switzerland - HELD THAT:- The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth R.Dalmia vs CIT [ 1977 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment Year 2006-07. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. "Re: Non-Admittance of Appeal by Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI a. As the Department, during the search, had seized jewellery of an amount much higher than the tax and interest liabilities, the assessee had made several requests since admittance of her tax liability to the department to sell the gold seized during the search and appropriate the proceeds towards the required tax demand. The Department has not taken any action in this regard. b. Refusing to admit the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not deposited the tax liability is prejudicial to the interests of the assessee as due to immovable property provisionally attached u/s 281B and seized jewellery, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first issue raised in the present appeal is against the non-admittance of the appeal by the CIT(A) on the ground that tax liability arising on account of returned income has not been paid by the assessee. 6. The second issue raised on merits is against the disallowance made on account of bank charges as expenses while calculating the interest income for the respective years. 7. The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had demised on 25.09.2008 and the younger son of the assessee was brought on record as legal heir of deceased assessee. It was further explained that the issue raised in the present appeal i.e. allowance of bank charges against bank interest stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of CIT(A) rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urned income before her death during 18.03.2015 to 12.08.2015. The details of payments are as under:- Asst.Year Rs. Paid on Bank BSR Code Challan No. 2006-07 1248624 18.03.2015 Union Bank of India, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 0291063 0001 2007-08 1335740 01.05.2015 0001 2008-09 1493210 20.07.2015 0002 2009-10 1085330 12.08.2015 0001 10. In such peculiar facts and circumstances especially where the assessee had demised, it is deemed fit to admit the appeals of the assessee and decide the issue on merits. We do not find any merit in setting aside the issue to the CIT(A) and proceed to decide present appeals. 11. Now coming to the next issue raised on merits. The assessee was living in Kuwait till 1985 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incurred in the accounting year. (v) There must be a clear nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income sought to be earned." 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth R.Dalmia vs CIT [1977] 110 ITR 644 (SC) was held that "for allowability of such deduction, the dominant purpose of the expenditure incurred must be to earn income. The connection between the expenditure and the earning of income need not be direct; even an indirect connection could prove the nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income." The claim of the assessee has been allowed in succeeding years 2010-11 & 2011-12 by the CIT(A) against which no appeal has been filed by the Revenue. We hold that the assessee has merit in her claim; the bank char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
