Ita/100157/2015 Of Sri.santhoschand Chopra v. The Income-Tax Officer

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF SHPITBMBER 2ZO1 PRESENT THE HON’BLEB MR. JUSTICEK ASHOK B. HINCHIGE AND THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINBSH KUMAR ITA NO.100157/2015 BBRTWREN SRI SANTHOSCHAND CHOPRAS/O MR.GORAKCHAND CHOPRAPROP. M/S.VANDANA TRADERSAPMC YARD, SAUNDATTIDIST: BELAGAVIAGEHKED ABOUT 68 YB APPRLLANT| (BY SRI V.K.GURUNATHAN AND SRI H.R.KAMBIYAVAR,ADVOCATES.) ANI THE INCOMBE-TAX OFFICE WARD 1(3), BELAGAV] —. RBSPONDBENT (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE.) THIS INCOMB TAX APPBAL IS FILBD UNDERSECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19061PRAYINGTO|SHTASIDE|TH BORDER|OF.THEAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.246/PNJ/2014 DATED18.6.2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, VIDEANNEXURE-A, ETC.,.THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THISDAY,P.S.DINESH KUMAR,|J >DRLIVEREDTHEKOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Appellant-Assessee, is questioning an orderof remand dated 18.60.2015, passed by the IncomTax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Panaji, remittingthe matterTOthe.AssessingOfficer|with.direction to verify the claim of the assessee and iffound correct, not to disallow the interest paid tothe payee and in the alternative to disallow onlyto the extent where interests are found payable onthe last date. ?)HeardSri|V.K.Raghunathan, -,.7/,8counsel for the appellant and Sri Y.V.Raviraj,learned counsel for the revenue, 3.The appellant has raised the followingthree questions of law for consideration of thisCourt. (1)Whetherinlaw,theITATWascorrect in passing an order withoutadjudication of a ground that wasbrought in appeal before it?correct in passing an order withoutadjudication of a ground that wasbrought in appeal before it? (it)Whether such an order would notform an order not per incuriamrform an order not per incuriamr (itt)Whetherthe.provisionsofsec.40(a) (ta)oftheActareapplicable when Form No.15G hasbeen obtained from payees/whenpayeesdid|not|have.taxableincome?sec.40(a) (ta)oftheActareapplicable when Form No.15G hasbeen obtained from payees/whenpayeesdid|not|have.taxableincome? 4It is argued by the learned counsel forthe assessee that out of 31 payees, appellant hadin fact obtained Form No.19G from 26 payees.Most oft these forms were received as on 31.3.200and only 5 forms were received belatedly. The case of the assessee before the Assessing Officer wasthat Form No.15G were sent to the CommissioneroT IncomeTaxby|FlykingCourierservice,saundatti. The Assessing Authority has recorded afinding that the waybill number of the courierunder which assessee claims to have been sentthe Forms was incorrect and under the said waybill OneMr.H.P.Kulkarnl1had.sent.=21consignmentTOChandrakant.Nadagoud5/90.12.2010.On|thispremise,theAssessingAuthority disallowed the deduction. On appeal,the ITAT by the impugned order has remitted thematter back to the Assessing Officer with theaforementioned directions. 5 We,have|carefullyconsidered|0=,submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Inthe light of the factual matrix of the case and thefinding recorded by the Assessing Authority, andthe impugned order is one being of remand, we 1,,�/5�34,1025/�59�-.A�2/�0=21�.++,.-�957>5/128,7.025/�;<�0=21��5470���++,.-�9.2-1�./8�21.>>5782/6-<�������������5�>5101� ��������� �7C & ���������