9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct disregarding AO's finding that the parties are entry operators. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting and addition of Rs. 13,89,056/- made by the AO on account of interest on ICD disregarding the fact that the assessee failed to file any proof to support its contention that the loan was borrowed for business purposes. 3. Further, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting an addition of Rs. 32,94,678/- on account of static creditor ignoring the fact that it failed to submit any supporting details in this regard. 4. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interference on my part, hence, the same may be upheld and accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute by considering the submissions of the assessee and adjudicated the issue vide para no. 4, 4.2, 6 & 7 at pages 19 to 20 of the impugned order. The said relevant paras are reproduced as under:- 4. Regarding the addition on account of unexplained share application money, it is seen that there were 3 parties from whom the assessee has received share application money being Rs. 5 lacs each. Bu before he Assessing Officer, assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay in this regard when he has debited it in the profit and loss account. After all the interest on ICD is an allowable expense of the business and the AO asking such a question that why it should not be disallowed, appears to be out of the way. It is for the AO to prove that any expenditure in profit and loss account has to be bogus if he is disallowing the same. This addition is also deleted. 7. The next addition is on account of static creditor of Rs. 32,94,678/-, M/s Shar Opticals, USA has been outstanding of since many years in books of accounts of the assessee. I have gone through the arguments taken by the AO and explanation submitted by the assessee and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s discharged his responsibility in giving the details. In view of this, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 10 lacs as unexplained cash credit which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue. 7.2 With regard to disallowance towards interest of Rs. 13,89,056/- on the ICD is concerned, I find that the AO asked the assessee to explain that why this interest should not be disallowed. The assessee submitted the details of ICD, but did not give any explanation and AO observed that as to why it should not be disallowed. But even if it is so, the conclusion is wrong that the assessee has nothing to say in this regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
