9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said disallowance is not warranted and the same be deleted." 2. Facts of the issue are that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 7,53,460/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s. 10 of the Act Further on perusal of the Balance Sheet, the assessee's investment as on 31.3.2008 was Rs. 11,91,40,827/-. Since it had earned exempt income, the provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D got triggered off. After confronting the appellant with the said provisions, the AO went on to work out a disallowance of Rs. 18,37,848/- . 2.1 On appeal, CIT(A) observed that, the issues arising out of application of sec. 14A and Rule 8D now stand settled by Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Ltd. vs. DCIT(2010) 43 DTR 177(Bom) in which it was decided that the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has an office at Mumbai and a manufacturing unit in Gandhidham. This borrowing is being used by the manufacturing unit. The only interest paid is in respect of the bank borrowing at the Gandhidham unit. As compared to this, the bank account at Mumbai from which investments are made is not a loan. It is a current account on which there is no interest. Further, the company has share capital of Rs. 48,51,200, Reserves of Rs. 20,48,91,228/- whereas the borrowings are only of Rs. 4,66,76,032/- interest paid during the year on borrowing is Rs. 2,07,76,032/- which are for earning business income in Gandhidham. 4.1 Without prejudice to the above, it is contented that if the interest is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Finance Ltd. under section 68 of the Act. Facts of the case are that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- as unsecured loan from Doulus Finance Ltd.,Mumbai. The assessee could only produce photostat copy of the confirmation letter from it. Thereafter, a notice u/s. 133(6) was issued to Doulus Finance Ltd. vide which the party was required to provide the details like PAN No., proof of return of income, evidence with regard to transactions with the assessee for F.Y. 2007-08. Neither any reply was received nor any submission was filed by the above mentioned party. As the party had failed to appear or to submit any detail with regard to the financial transaction that it had with the asessee, it was given a show cause vide offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by the assessee in the matter. All material facts on record prove the identity of the lender and also genuineness of the transaction. The transaction made through banking channels is duly reflected in the respective bank accounts. Moreover, the assessee has also returned back the said amount again through banking channels. The creditor is regularly assessed to income tax and copy of return for the relevant year as also copy of bank statement have also been submitted by it. Therefore, there is nothing to doubt its creditworthiness of the assessee. In the light of such facts, it is held that the addition has been incorrectly made and deleted the same. Against this, the revenue is in appeal before us. 9. The ld. DR submitted that an am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... source. For this purpose he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn. Pvt. Ltd.(159 ITR 78) and submitted that the assessee has discharged the primary burden cast upon it and thereafter it is the duty of the Revenue to cause necessary enquiry if the Revenue failed to cause necessary enquiry it cannot be given second innings to carryon further enquiry. He relied upon the order of CIT(A). 10. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record. In this case it is seen that from the bank account of the lender with Bank of India Ghatkopar Branch(W) an amount of Rs. 125.00 lacs was deposited into their account on 7/3/2008, on the same day the same amount has been transferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur opinion the CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition when the enquiry was stopped on account of failure on part of the assessee and not because of failure on part of AO. In spite of issue of notice u/s. 133(6) there is no proper representation by M/s. Doulos Finance Ltd. and same was informed to the assessee. The assessee at that point of time instead of filing all necessary information before AO, assessee opted once again to file same Photostat copy of confirmation which is not proper. Once the AO rejected the assessee's explanation and requested the assessee to file further documents in support of the genuineness and credit worthiness of the parties, it was not open to the assessee to state that the AO failed to carry on enquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
