Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1242 - ITAT DELHIDisallowances of losses on account of forfeiture of security deposit and inventory write off - counsel contended that the loss has been incurred by the assessee in the ordinary course of business arising from business commitment for which agreement was also executed - DR submitted that the directors of both the companies are from the same family - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has given cogent reasons for non acceptance of the claim of the assessee. AO had earlier given detailed reason which goes to show that the claim remains unsubstantiated. The onus in the instant case is very heavy on the assessee which the assessee has failed to discharge. The basis of calculation of security deposit, the proof of production of specialized glass, cost involved thereon is not available on record. The agreement with the AE is also not available in original. Except for the transfer of fund to SAL, no other substantive evidence is available to enable us to appreciate the facts in its perspective. Without repeating various reasons provided in the assessment order and the first appellate order, we are of the view that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus towards bona fides of the claim. Besides, it is not known as to how the payment made in pursuance of so called agreement entered in 2010 can be seen as loss accrued to the assessee in Assessment Year 2015-16 in question when the business operations were itself suspended in November, 2012. Both the assessee and the SAL are family controlled with common shareholding and therefore are privy to the exact affairs. It is not a case where a third party has been caught unaware resulting in unintended losses. We are not convinced at all by the defense raised by the assessee in justification. We thus decline to interfere with the findings rendered by the lower authorities. Decided against assessee.
|