9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 03.02.2003 and 25.02.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench in ITA No.4293/Ahd/1991 and ITA No.4290/Ahd/1991 respectively for the A.Y. 1988-89 whereby, both the appeals were partly allowed. 2. The facts in brief are that in September 1988, a search was carried out by the Revenue in the premises of the assessee and in pursuance thereof, assessments were finalized. The assessee had paid interest to the Bank for cash credit facilities obtained by it whereas, it had not charged interest on the money advanced to its associate concerns in which the Directors were interested. The A.O disallowed the said difference. 3. Against the aforesaid order of the A.O., appeal was preferred before the CIT(A). In the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of closing stock by looking at the difference between the value of stockin- trade as per the books of accounts and the statement which was submitted by the assessee to its banker for availing credit facilities by way of hypothecation of the stock?" 6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 7. Insofar as question no.1 is concerned, the A.O found that the assessee has paid interest to the banks for cash credit facilities and has advanced interest free loans to five concerns. In the opinion of the A.O., the assessee has given indirect benefit to the five concerns wherein the Directors were having interest by not charging the interest on such advances. When the assessee was asked to show as to why it has not charged inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock at a common place. The stock of the other group concerns were given in the Bank statement. This fact was also brought to the notice of the Bank. Similarly, a letter given by the Bank Manager to the Director of the assessee was on record, which is indicative of the fact that the assessee has informed the Bank regarding common stock position at one place of the sister concerns. In this way, the assessee has duly discharged the onus of explaining the excess stock and the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. 11. In our opinion, no illegality has been committed by the Appellate Tribunal by allowing the deletion. Hence, question no.2 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 12. The appeal, accordingly, stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
