TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....einafter referred as 'the Act') dated 20.12.2019 and 31.03.2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. 2. Since both the appeals filed by the revenue are having common issue and thus, they both are decided by a common order. First, we take revenues appeal for AY 2017-18. ITA NO. 4606/Del/2025 AY 2017-18 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the AO observed that during the year under appeal assessee has declared interest income of Rs. 2,03,74,092/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" and claimed deduction u/s 57 of the Act to the tune of 1,86,75,473/-. The assessee explained that he has taken loan of Rs. 25.00 crores from M/s Siddhi Vinayak International which was credited in his saving bank account and paid int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act that assessee has failed to prove nexus between interest expense claimed under section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest income earned and declared under the head Income from Other Sources. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT, Appeal has erred by not appreciating the fact that the AO has denied a revised computation to claim the interest expense from the head Income from Business and Profession instead of Income From Other Sources, which was not claimed earlier. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT, Appeal has erred in not appreciating the fact that in the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Hono....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the order of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Limited (supra). He thus prayed for the confirmation of the addition made by the AO towards the interest expenses claimed by the assessee. 6. Heard the ld. SR. DR on all the grounds for appeal and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is with respect to the allowability of deduction of interest expenses of Rs. 1,86,75,473/- paid by the assessee on the unsecured loan taken of Rs. 25.00 crores from M/s Siddhivinayak International a Proprietary firm of Sri Kamals Kant Chaurasia, brother of assessee which was utilized wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business which fact has not been denied by the AO however, the deducti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was paid after due compliances with provisions of TDS and claimed it as expenses in income from other sources in the return of income filed u/s 139. The appellant during the assessment proceeding submitted that the loan was taken for business purpose and claim of expenses is justified. The appellant submitted revised computation of income before the AO. The AO disallowed interest paid as disallowed expenses citing case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. It is perused thoroughly and it is seen that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case concluded that no claim of any new deduction shall be made before the AO without filing revised return of income. It is seen that in the case of the appellant no new clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tween the interest income and the interest expenses. Once the revenue has failed to control the finding of the fact that the assessee has utilized the loan amount for the purpose of his business carried out under the proprietary firm M/s Siddhi Vinayak Traders, the interest paid on such loan deserves to be allowed as deduction out of the business income. 8. Regarding the ground of the revenue with respect to admission of the fresh claim by ld. CIT(A) without filing revised return, it is observed that admission of a fresh claim in the appellate proceedings is purely a legal issue and whether the assessee is eligible for such claim and what would be the correct amount of claim is purely a question of fact. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Board later issued Circular F.No.81/27/65-IT(B) dated 18th May,1965, defining the duties of PROs in providing assistance to the public in filing correct return and making eligible claims. In the case of Essar Oil Ltd. the coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in ITA No. 3661 & 2827/Mum/2000, after considering various CBDT Circulars and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (229 ITR 383); UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) and in the case of Shelly Products and Anr. (261 ITR 367) and various decisions and Circulars has held as under: "Having regard to these decisions, in our view the order of the CIT(A) cannot be found fault with. The learned Departmental Representative to the query from the Bench has fairly admitted that t....