TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed – Decided in favour of Assessee. - M.A. No. 220/Ahd/2013 (in ITA No. 266/Ahd/2013) - - - Dated:- 29-4-2014 - Shri D. K. Tyagi And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. N. Divetia, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri K. C. Mathews, Sr. D. R. ORDER Per : Shri T. R. Meena, Accountant Member This M.A. is filed by the Assessee seeking recall of the Tribunal s order dated 25.10.2013. The assessee submitted that there are some apparent errors in this order, which are reproduced as under: 2.1 Briefly stated facts of the applicant's case are that The appellant is partnership firm and engaged in cotton ginning pressing. It had filed its E- return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 25.9.2009 declaring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er book (Pages- 1-122) as well as written synopsis dated 8-8-2013 and 14-8-2013. 2.5 The applicant submits that during the course of hearing the applicant had raised following contentions: (a) The AO had failed to establish the nexus between the interest bearing borrowings and interest free advances and therefore the presumption is as to the mixed funds and in that case, one has to rely upon the Balance Sheet. Now the perusal of the audited annual accounts of the appellant for A.Y. 2009-10 show that the appellant was a cash rich assessee in as much as; (i) There was a closing cash balance of Rs. 3,19,20,625 (see page.25) (ii) there was a huge turnover and gross profit of Rs.2,33,89,836 and net profit of Rs. 33,24,557. (page- 19) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue raised at the time of hearing in deciding the case. The ld. A.R. argued that assessee company is a cash-rich company and as per balance sheet, cash was available at Rs.3.90 crore with it and also net profit earned during the year 33.24 lacs. The transaction made with M/s. Om Kailash Cotton was sharafi transaction on almost daily basis and there was a business expediency to advance the loan to it. The A.R. further has drawn our attention that case law cited at the time of hearing i.e. Radhaswami Satsang (192 ITR .)(SC), Woocombers India Ltd. (134 ITR 219), Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340) (Bom), Raghuvir Synthetics (Tax Appeal NO. 829 of 2007 dt. 15.12.2011) (Guj.) Sridev Enterprise (192 ITR 165) (Kar.), and submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
