TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case are similar to the facts of earlier year as the transaction started in earlier year and the amount advanced being for purchase of an asset for business purposes, no disallowance can be made. AO wrongly made the addition by holding that assessee itself added back notional interest from 25.5.2007 which is though a fact but the interest was added back on amounts advanced which was over and above the sale consideration. Therefore, no difference in facts and circumstances of the present case with the earlier year & consequently the addition deleted. In favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.237/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2013 - Shri I. C. Sudhir And Shri T. S. Kapoor,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings observed that in the financial year 2006-07 the assessee had decided to purchase the premises of M/s Toy N Toy International and therefore an advance of Rs.6,53,82,634/- was given and was considered as advance against sale consideration. The Assessing Officer further observed that the amount in the present year was outstanding as opening balance and assessee had added back interest from 25.5.2007 @ 13.8% whereas it has ignored to add back interest from 1.4.2007 to 24.5.2007. Therefore, the Assessing Officer calculated an amount of Rs.13,34,880/- being interest pertaining to this period and made the addition. 3. Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A). The Ld CIT(A) after going through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the computation of income. However, such interest for the period 1.4.2007 to 24.5.2007 has not been added. The action of the Assessing Officer in therefore adding the interest for this period @ 13.8%, as adopted by the appellant is justified. The order of Hon'ble ITAT for the assessment year 2007-08 is respectfully not followed in the year under consideration as the facts are different. In view of the above, the action of the Assessing Officer is upheld and the ground of appeal is dismissed." 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. At the outset, the ld AR submitted that the case of the assessee is covered by Tribunal order relating to assessee itself in the earlier year. The facts of the case were explained to the Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory premises and part possession was conveyed. On 2.7.2007 sale deed was executed. Therefore, it can be concluded that till the conclusion of sale deed amounts advanced continued to be for acquisition of assets for which Hon'ble Tribunal had already made a finding and had deleted the notional interest in earlier year. The assessee has passed an entry for purchase of asset on 2.7.2007 which is apparent from paper book page 3 where a copy of account of vendor is placed. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of earlier year as the transaction started in earlier year and the amount advanced being for purchase of an asset for business purposes, no disallowance can be made. The Assessing Officer wrongly made the addition by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
