TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there are two payments totaling ₹ 15,64,945/- and after deducting this payment, the net balance has been shown at ₹ 3,81,83,228/-. When the assessee has suo motu added the entire amount of the present year accrual of ₹ 51,30,697/-, no further addition is called for on account of such unpaid interest on secured loans and therefore, the same was rightly deleted by CIT(A) - Decided against revenue Addition on unsecured loan from the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Limited , Lucknow for Cane Price Payment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 84.20 lac being incremental liability of the present year. Against this objection of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not established the genuineness of the incremental liability, the CIT(A) has decided the issue on the basis that the assessee received an amount of ₹ 17500000.00 from U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Lucknow and repaid ₹ 9080000.00 and U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. is regular assessee with JCIT-II Lucknow having PAN-AAAAU 0391D and thus the genuineness of loan cannot be doubted. When this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not come within the definition of any services rendered u/s 194J of the Act, addition correctly deleted by CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of School Fund - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- From the the order of learned CIT(A), we find that no deduction was made in the present year. We also find that the copy of ledger account is available on page No. 62 of the paper book and as per the same, there is opening balance of ₹ 390062.46 and the same amount is the closing balance and therefore, there is no deduction from cane growers in the present year. In view of this fact that there is no deduction in the present year, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and therefore, we hold that the same was rightly deleted by learned CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of link road - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We find that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made addition of ₹ 8,68,560/- by stating that this amount has not been deposited till the filing of return of income and since it is self-generated liability and addition was made. We fail to understand t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compared to the facts in assessment year 2005-06 and 2008-09 wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is rejected. 5. Ground No. 2 is as under: 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 35,67,752/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest payable on loan from Sugar Development Fund and the CIT (A) has not considered the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 6. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that computation of income submitted by the assessee along with the return of income is available on pages 11 12 and on page No. 9 of the paper book is ledger copy of account of interest accrued and due but not paid on secured loan. He pointed out that in computation of income, the entire amount of accrued interest for present year of ₹ 51,30,697/- has been added back and therefore, no further addition is called f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of learned CIT(A). 10. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was decided by learned CIT(A) by making following observations on page 5 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- Decision and reasons therefor I have carefully considered the issue, perused the assessment order and gone through the detailed written submissions. The assessee has received ₹ 17500000.00 for cane price payment from U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Lucknow and repaid ₹ 9080000.00 against the same. The U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. is regular assessee with JCIT-II Lucknow having PAN-AAAAU 0391D and thus the genuineness of loan cannot be doubted. In the circumstances of the case, the addition as made by the AO is deleted. 11. We find that on page No. 2 of the assessment order, it is noted by the Assessing Officer that query was raised regarding liability shown for can price payment in Schedule-D of ₹ 1,34,20,000/- vide letter dated 04/07/2008 and the assessee was required to prove the genuineness of this liability. The Assessing Officer has also noted that the assessee has co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available on pages 66 to 69 of the paper book. He also submitted that the copy of ledger account is available on pages 95 and 96 of the paper book. He also drew our attention to page No. 28 29 of the paper book containing ledger account copy for the present year. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per copy of ledger account for the present year available on pages 28 and 29 of the paper book, there is opening balance of ₹ 1,05,88,001.75 and the closing balance is ₹ 1,07,99,684.88. As per the copy of ledger account of succeeding year available on pages 95 and 96 of the paper book, the opening balance is the same as closing balance in the present year and there is transfer of fully paid shares of ₹ 3.75 lac on 31/03/2007 leaving a closing balance of ₹ 1,12,10,311.28. Hence, it is seen that there was allotment of shares of ₹ 3.75 lac in the next year and there is allotment of shares of ₹ 7,34,700/- in the present year. In the light of these facts, we examine the finding of learned CIT(A) and the submissions made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as available on pages 66 to 69 of the paper book. In the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ground No. 5 is rejected. 18. Ground No. 6 is as under: 6. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) is not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 13,41,800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of payment of subscription to Federation under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and the CIT (A) has not considered the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 19. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in the case of ACIT, Sitapur vs. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd. Sampurnanagar, Lakhimpur Kheri in I.T.A. No.406 to 409/Lkw/2013 dated 29/11/2013. He also submitted that the copy of the Tribunal order is available on pages 70 to 75 of the paper book and in particular, he drawn our attention to Para 10 of this Tribunal order. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the case cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee, the Tribunal has considered this issue as to whether the activities of services render ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the details as filed, action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition is not maintainable and the same is deleted. 23.1 From the above Para from the order of learned CIT(A), we find that no deduction was made in the present year. We also find that the copy of ledger account is available on page No. 62 of the paper book and as per the same, there is opening balance of ₹ 390062.46 and the same amount is the closing balance and therefore, there is no deduction from cane growers in the present year. In view of this fact that there is no deduction in the present year, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and therefore, we hold that the same was rightly deleted by learned CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 24. Ground No. 8 is as under: 8. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) is not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,68,560/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of link road and the CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 25. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
