Amarjeet Singh v. CIT Delhi-XI New Delhi
[Citation -2016-LL-1020-56]

Citation 2016-LL-1020-56
Appellant Name Amarjeet Singh
Respondent Name CIT Delhi-XI New Delhi
Court ITAT-Delhi
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 20/10/2016
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags interest of revenue • repayment of loan • booking of space • share of profit • house property • interest paid
Bot Summary: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the action of the Commissioner in involving the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and in annulling the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in the grounds of its being erroneous 2 ITA No. 319/Del/2014 and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is arbitrary, erroneous, unjust and illegal and must be quashed. Since the assessee has not earned any interest on the amount advanced which is his surplus funds, it is not the business of the assessee i.e. booking flat and selling them on profit, the interest of Rs.2,96,333/- on the loan borrowed from Ms. Madhu Bhandari is not an allowable expenses and no deduction for the same can be allowed against Other income. The Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the assessment order u/s. The particulars of acquired property for buildings along with documents were submitted and placed before the Assessing Officer and thus all the aspects of the assessee taken into account at the time of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer while passing Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act has taken cognizance of the necessary documents/details filed by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer in Assessment Order noted that the income of the assessee consists of salary, house property, share of profit from firm and other sources and verified the same. The CIT while passing the order under Section 263 of the Act has not shown any new material or has not come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income during the assessment proceedings.


1 ITA No. 319/Del/2014 IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-319/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) Amarjeet Singh vs CIT 23, Regal Building Delhi-XI Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi (RESPONDENT) AAGPS2209D (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath, Adv Respondent by Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing 17.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement 20.10.2016 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against order dated 12/12/2013 passed by CIT-New Delhi u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. grounds of appeal are as follows:- 1. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law action of Commissioner in involving provisions of Section 263 of Income Tax Act 1961 and in annulling assessment order passed by Assessing Officer in grounds of its being erroneous 2 ITA No. 319/Del/2014 and prejudicial to interest of Revenue is arbitrary, erroneous, unjust and illegal and must be quashed. 3. During this year assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.2,96,333/- against income from other sources as interest paid to Ms. Madhu Bhandari on loan taken from her amounting to Rs.70 lakhs. assessee has himself submitted during course of hearing that said loan was utilized for giving advances to parties for booking of space and return of earlier business loan used for booking of space. Out of this loan assessee had given advances for booking of space amounting to Rs.20 lacs to M/s ABV Infrastructure Ltd Rs. 10 lakhs invested in M/s S.M. & Sons as capita; Rs. 5 lakhs paid to M/s Global Communication for space. And remaining amount has been used for repayment of loan to Bank. assessee has not earned any interest on amount advanced for booking of space. Moreover, it is not business of assessee. Since amount has been utilized for booking of space and assessee has also surplus funds with him which he had advanced for properties. assessee had advanced amount of Rs.3,71,36,022/-. Since assessee has not earned any interest on amount advanced which is his surplus funds, it is not business of assessee i.e. booking flat and selling them on profit, interest of Rs.2,96,333/- on loan borrowed from Ms. Madhu Bhandari is not allowable expenses and no deduction for same can be allowed against Other income . 4. Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 held that assessment order u/s. 143 (3) 3 ITA No. 319/Del/2014 of Act dated 12.02.2013 was erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to interest of revenue and cancelled same and directed Assessing Officer to frame afresh. 5. Ld. AR submitted that there was no new material found by CIT while passing order under Section 263 of Act. particulars of acquired property for buildings along with documents were submitted and placed before Assessing Officer and thus all aspects of assessee taken into account at time of assessment proceedings. 6. Ld. DR submitted that order under Section 263 of Act passed by CIT is just and proper. 7. We have heard both parties and perused relevant documents. It is pertinent to note that total income of assessee was computed as Rs.11,16,290/- u/s 288A of Act. Assessing Officer while passing Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of Act has taken cognizance of necessary documents/details filed by Assessee during assessment proceedings. Assessing Officer in Assessment Order noted that income of assessee consists of salary, house property, share of profit from firm and other sources and verified same. CIT while passing order under Section 263 of Act has not shown any new material or has not come to conclusion that there is escapement of income during assessment proceedings. particulars of acquired property at Regal buildings along with documents were submitted and placed before Assessing Officer 4 ITA No. 319/Del/2014 and thus all aspects of income of assesee was taken into account at time of assessment proceedings. CIT cannot take different view on same material available to Assessing Officer. There is no such power u/s 263 of Act to Commissioner of Income Tax. In result order u/s 263 of Act does not survive. 8. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. order is pronounced in open court 20th of October, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (G. D. AGRAWAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20/10/2016 R. Naheed * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Date 1. Draft dictated on 17.08.2016 PS 2. Draft placed before author 18.08.2016 PS 5 ITA No. 319/Del/2014 3. Draft proposed & placed before .2016 JM/AM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 20.10.2016 6. Kept for pronouncement on PS 7. File sent to Bench Clerk 20.10.2016 PS 8. Date on which file goes to AR 9. Date on which file goes to Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. Amarjeet Singh v. CIT Delhi-XI New Delhi
Report Error