TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit us to review our own judgment - Decided against the assessee. - M.A. No. 96/Ahd/2013 (in ITA No. 1565/Ahd/2003) - - - Dated:- 19-9-2013 - Shri D. K. Tyagi And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri A. L. Thakkar, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri O. P. Bhateja, Sr. D. R. ORDER Per : Shri T.R.Meena, Accountant Member This M.A. is filed by the appellant against the order passed by this Bench, dated 13.07.2012 in ITA No. 1565/Ahd/2003 C.O. No. 74/Ahd/2004 for A.Y. 1998-99. 2. In paragraph no. 7 of this order, this Bench has confirmed the addition of Rs.20 lacs. The appellant submitted all the facts of the case through this M.A. but basic issue has been raised in following paragraphs of the M.A. which is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... editor) is found to be acceptable and therefore no addition deserves to be made. As regards the source of deposit received by the other cash creditor i.e. Hemendra L. Shah doubts have been raised to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- and therefore, the addition has come to be partly confirmed. Infact, the contention of the assessee that he is not required to explain the source of source and origin of the origin of the deposits and reliance has been placed in the case laws referred in para 4.6 pg.10 of the order passed by the Hon. ITAT. The judgements are of the Apex Court as well as that of the Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon. ITAT while rendering the decision in para 7 pg. 11 has neither been considered the judicial pronouncements nor pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st in the case of the following parties are not verifiable from the copy of the accounts submitted. The direction of the Hon. ITAT in para 12 pg.29 of the order are reproduced for easy reference: "But interest amount in case of Galaxy Impex of Rs.4,62,615/-, in case of Sonu Exim of Rs.23,35,561/-, in case of Tusharbhai K. Shah of Rs.8,59,562/-, in case of Hemendra L. Shah of Rs.3,62,548/-, in case of Pinky Corporation of Rs.4,63,956/- Rs.1,75,068/-, in case of Vidhi Corporation Rs.1,75,068/- in case of R. A. Corporation Rs.7,397/-. The explanations are not verified from the copy of accounts. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify the above interest, which are claimed by the assessee as expenses. The loan shown from Vidhi Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 13 the AO has proposed to make addition by giving a show cause notice. The relevant portion is produced for your kind reference. "Moreover in your Parth Mercantile Inc. proprietary concern you are doing financial business even though it appears that transactions made for huge amount like Rs.4 crores but the transaction in your books of accounts, where you have not shown as interest received or interest paid though the business is mercantile. Interest receivable is not considered for income. Because it is notional income. However, interest paid is disallowed to the extent of income receivable. You have not given interest on huge borrowings. Why the interest at 18% should not be considered as unexplained expenditure incurred by you u/s 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period of 01/04/97 to 31/03/98 of Parth Mercantile Inc. where total outstanding loan of Rs.21,59,23,912/- has been shown. The assessee has not verified on what date of loan of Rs.50 lakhs has been accepted. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify the loan with reference to addition made in assessment order." 7.1 The direction given by the Hon. Tribunal to the AO to verify the loan with reference to the addition made in the assessment order of Rs.50,00,000/- is contrary to the settled position of fact and law and therefore necessitates rectification. As a matter of fact, Shri Hemendra L. Shah is the proprietor of M/s. Vidhi Corporation who has given the contra account duly confirmed during the course of assessment proceedings. His i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... net amount is considered. In fact, the AO had not pointed out what particular amount/date has the cash credit been treated as unexplained. This being a mistake apparent from record necessitating rectification. 7. As regards ground no. 5, 6, 7 regarding the deletion of Rs.1,72,17,951/- on account of bank charges and commission, the Hon. Tribunal in para 15 pg.30 of the order has merely stated that the CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to the AO before admitting the evidence and therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the expenses and therefore the issue is set aside to the AO." 3. The appellant raise various grounds which are summarized as under: i. The appellant is not required to explain the source of Rs.1.74 crore o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
