TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same advances to be out of interest bearing funds in the impugned year. Even on merits it is clear from the facts stated above, that the assessee had enough interest free funds to advance interest free sums to its sister concern. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 1085/Chd/2013 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2015 - SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT For the Appellant : Shri Jitender Kumar, D.R. For the Respondent : S/Shri S.K. Mukkhi Ajay Chaudhary ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP : This appeal is filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana dated 4.9.2013 relating to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The only ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 18,22,368/- made on account of interest free advance given to sister concern by the assessee, thereby ignoring the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd., 286 ITR 1. 3. The only issue involved in this case relates to the allowance of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der consideration was not called for in view of the above logic highlighted by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2006-07 with which, the learned CIT (Appeals) agreed. Consequently, he deleted the disallowance of ₹ 18,22,368/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before me, the learned D.R. vehemently argued that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional high court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. (suspra). He argued that the distinction on facts made by the learned CIT (Appeals) was incorrect. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). He also produced a chart depicting the status of the impugned issue in appeal in various years from assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10. The learned counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessee s case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-I, Ludhiana Vs. Rakesh Gupta in ITA No. 37/2014, dated 02/07/2015 (P H). 8. I have heard the rival submissions, gone through the doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount that stood outstanding on the last day of the previous accounting year and, therefore, its nature and status cannot be different on the first day of the current accounting year from its nature and status as on the last day of the previous accounting year. Regarding the past years, the assessee s claims for deduction were allowed in respect of the sums advanced during those years; this could be only on the assumption that those advances were not out of borrowed funds of the assessee. This finding during the previous years is the very basis of the deductions permitted during the past years, whether a specific finding was recorded or not. A departure from that finding in respect of the said amounts advanced during the previous year would result in a contradictory finding; it will not be equitable to permit the Revenue to take a different stand now in respect of the amounts which were the subject-matter of previous years assessments; consistency and definiteness of approach by the Revenue is necessary in the matter of recognizing the nature of an account maintained by the assessee so that the basis of a concluded assessment would not be ignored without actually reopening t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question (i), the appellant's case is that an amount of ₹ 8.89 crores was advanced by the respondent/assessee to his son. The respondent/assessee on the other hand contends that during the assessment year in question 2008-2009, only about ₹ 2.14 crores was advanced by him to his son. It would make no difference. The Tribunal has rightly upheld the detailed and reasoned order of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(appeals) has analyzed the cash available with the respondent. For instance, the opening balance of capital as on 01.04.2007 was about ₹ 13.45 crores and the closing balance as on 31.03.2008 was about ₹ 10.40 crores. The opening balance as on 01.04.2007 was about ₹ 73.57crores and the closing balance as on 31.03.2008 was about ₹ 86.60 crores. The opening balance of interest free unsecured loans from family and friends as on 01.04.2007 was about ₹ 55.95 crores and the closing balance of interest free unsecured loans from family and friends as on 31.03.2008 was about ₹ 51.46 crores. It was not the case of the AO that the assessee had diverted the funds borrowed on interest for the purpose of advancing the sum to his son for business. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
