Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 388 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - unsecured loans addition - HELD THAT:- As carefully perused the questionnaire issued by the assessing officer dated 31.08.2016 and find that in response to question No.15 of this questionnaire assessee filed details of unsecured loans appearing as on 31.03.2014 along with ledger accounts and in some cases copies of income tax returns of various cash creditors. As examined the documents filed by the assessee in response to point 16 of the questionnaire which contains details of loans and advances given to various parties along with ledger accounts of each of these parties and there income tax return. We have also perused written submission filed before the Ld. AO which contained various details of interest earned on loans and advances, party wise details of interest paid in the required format. Before the Ld. AO assessee had also filed submissions regarding unsecured loan, high interest expenditure, and allowability of interest expenditure. It was also claimed by the assessee that entire unsecured and secured loans taken during the year has only been utilized for the business of assessee. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. [2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT] contending that the interest on money borrowed and lent to sister concern without charging interest is allowable on the same test as that for allowance of business expenditure viz” for the purpose of business “allowable if made as a measure of commercial expediency”. DR failed to controvert this fact that all these details were very much available before the assessing officer and submissions were duly made by the assessee supported by settled judicial precedence for the claim of interest expenditure - No new enquiry was conducted by Ld. Pr. CIT, in this regard at its own motion as required in the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Thus, this is a case where complete enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer with application of mind and in our considered view, it is not open for Ld. Pr. CIT to order for a fresh enquiry when adequate enquiry has already been done and one of the plausible view has been taken by the assessing officer as permissible under the law. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in order to substitute his view with that of the assessing officer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|