TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition of interest debited to P&L account on the unsecured loan - Held that:- . The amount of ₹ 9,99,175/- has been disallowed on the ground that corresponding unsecured loans on which this interest has been credited, had been held as not explained satisfactorily and were added to the income of the assessee. Since we have upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) of deletion of addition, relating to unsecured loans raised during the year which have been held as explained and the addition of unsecured loans was deleted. Therefore, interest amounting to ₹ 9,99,175/- was allowable to the assessee. Hence, the addition on this account was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided in favour of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30,567/- on 30.9.2008. The case was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, Notice u/s. 143(2) dated 25.9.2009 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Later on notice u/s. 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued. In response to the notice, Ld. AR of the Assessee attended the assessment proceedings and filed necessary details. After consdiering the documents, the AO determined the income of the assessee at ₹ 3,25,77,242/- by making various additions vide order dated 31.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer dated 31.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3), assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/ subscriber, the genuineness of the transactions and the veracity. In order to support his contention, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has filed a Paper Book having pages 1 to 30 containing the copies of the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls Investment Ltd. [2015] 64 Taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) High Court of Delhi ii) CIT-IV vs. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) High Court of Delhi. iii) CIT-1 vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P) Ltd. (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 473 (Gujarat) High Court of Gujarat. iv) CIT vs. Shyam Sunder Co. (1989) 45 Taxman 248 (Cal.) High Court of Calcutta. v) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2001) 116 Taxman 572 (MP) Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of the assessment order u/s 143(3) for the same year was also filed. Similarly, in the case of Mrs. Preeti Sachdeva a copy of her ITR for the Assessment Year 2006-07 was also filed. In his remand report the AO has stated that this documentary evidence filed by the assessee was fresh evidence and may not be considered as the same was not filed during the course of the assessment proceedings and the assessee did not fulfill the conditions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The assessee on the other hand, has submitted that this evidence was produced before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings but was not accepted by the AO as the same was not accompanied by relevant ITRs. We have observed that a sworn affidavit has also been f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arged his initial onus in respect of establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions in respect of unsecured loans raised during the year from the following three creditors: (a) Avinash Lal Sachdeva ₹ 83,50,000/- (b) Soma Rani ₹ 1,01,50,000/- (c) Preeti Sachdeva ₹ 36,50,000/- Total ₹ 2,21,50,000/- 8.2.1 We also note that AO without making any enquiry and without bringing any material on record to the contrary, was not justified in reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h were diverted towards interest free advances and deposits and investments which did not result in any income. 9.2 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference on the issue in dispute and the same may be upheld. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, we find that the interest amount claimed in the Profit and Loss account has been disallowed by the AO on two grounds. The amount of ₹ 9,99,175/- has been disallowed on the ground that corresponding unsecured loans on which this interest has been credited, had been held as not explained satisfactorily and were added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
