Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 223 - HC - Income TaxTuition fee refunded by cash disallowed being not verifiable - assessee is running an institute providing coaching for IIT entrance examination - Held that:- Admittedly even the AO is satisfied about majority of the payments which has not been doubted and on random basis the AO found that out of 175 payments, eleven payments were doubted but he chose to add entire amount in assessment year 2005-06 and @ 20% in the assessment year 2008-09. On further additional evidence having been led before the CIT(A) both the appellate authorities further analysed the evidence and came to the conclusion that addition if required, could be only to the extent of ₹ 60,200/- (ITAT). Both the appellate authorities have considered confirmations/certificates/receipts and other material and once the entire material had been considered, we see no reason to interfere. Even the AO found fault in few cases only and was satisfied in majority of cases. For the assessment year 2008-09, on the same facts and circumstances though the AO in this year disallowed ad hoc amount @ 20% of the amount paid in cash at ₹ 18,19,487/- which was on ad hoc basis, but CIT(A) after analysing the material available and placed on record by the assessee, came to the conclusion that the disallowance is required to be made only to the extent of ₹ 2,50,000/-. This was also upheld by the Tribunal on a further appeal by both the sides. Therefore, when both the appellate authorities have upheld ad hoc addition, therefore, in our view, when estimate has been made even by the AO, it was partly modified by the first appellate authority and upheld by the Tribunal, is also based on appreciation of evidence and is thus a finding of fact and no substantial question of law can be said to arise in this year as well. - Decided against revenue Disallowance of interest - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- when there was no agreement to charge interest from the persons, to whom the assessee advanced short term loan/advance, the AO could not disallow part of the interest. It is also an admitted fact, as observed by the Tribunal, that the AO .vas not able to pin pointedly come to a definite conclusion that how interest bearing loans had been diverted towards interest free advances and since the AO was not able to prove nexus between interest bearing loans vis-a-vis interest free loans/advances, therefore, in our view as well, once the AO was not able to come to a definite conclusion as to nexus having been established about interest bearing loans having been diverted towards interest free loans/advances, and such being a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence, in our view no substantial question of law arise on this question as well. - Decided against revenue
|