TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as under: "1 Ld. CIT (A) erred in Jaw and on facts confirming disallowance of interest expense of Rs. 42,184/- paid to Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd made by u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source. 2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts upholding action of AO treating sale transaction of 2 properties though sold in A Y 2011/12 by mistake shown & offered to tax in A Y 2012/13 as unaccounted transaction. 3. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have accepted plea of appellant to direct AO to grant relief of taxes paid for AY 2012/13 once AO accepted in remand report of appellant having paid taxes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Lankmark Township (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 279 CTR 384 (Delhi) which hold that 2nd proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is retrospective in nature and applicable to the AY 2011-12 in question. In the light of the aforesaid decision, the CIT(A) held remitted the matter back to the file of the AO to allow the aforesaid expense, if it is found that the recipients have offered the payments made by the assessee as income in their tax return. 12. We find that similar issue was under consideration before the coordinate bench in the case of Dipak r. Gondaliya vs. ITO in ITA No.3313/Ahd/2015 & Another order dated 16.03.2016 cited on behalf of the assessee in the course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) has retrospective effect. Per contra, the ld. D.R. drew our attention to the Departmental view of CBDT vide Circular No. 10/DV/2013 dated 16.12.2013. It is the say of the ld. D.R. that in the light of the said Circular, the disallowance made by the A.O and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have carefully considered the rival contentions. At the very outset, we have to say that the reliance on the Circular by the D.R. is misplaced as that Circular refers to the decision of the Tribunal Special Bench, Vishakhapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. Addl. CIT. The Circular also refers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceipt 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. 4. In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 concern addition on account of income from sale of two properties in AY 2011-12 resulting into double taxation. 6. In the course of hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that admittedly the sale transactions of two properties happened in AY 2011-12 was wrongly accounted for and offered to taxation in AY 2012-13. On being confronted by AO, the assessee however duly paid tax in correct AY 2011-12. It was thus submitted that appropriate direction would thus b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 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. It was submitted that entire exercise is tax neutral. The learned 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. 10. We find the 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 w....