TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1010 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar i/b. Mihir Naniwadekar for the Respondent ORDER P. C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 8th November, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made with regard to amount shown as 'advance against export' out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondentassessee pointed out that it had approached the Reserve Bank of India for permission to return the amount of ₹ 3.04 crores shown as an advance against export to M/s. Amas Mauritius Ltd. However the approval of Reserve Bank of India had not yet been received. 6. The impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the respondentassessee's appeal by following the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. 177 ITR 128 to hold that where an amount has shown as an advance in the balance sheet by the assessee it amounts to acknowledgment of liability and it does not cease to exist. So far as the genuineness of the transaction as well as creditworthiness of the creditor is concerned, the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved for export to M/s. Amas Mauritius Ltd. Consequent to the aforesaid permission, the amounts have in fact been repatriated on 16th May, 2014. Therefore the aforesaid amount is now no longer shown as a liability in its financial accounts relating to Assessment Year 201516. 9. We find that the issue as arising herein was also a subject matter of consideration before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jayram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it is relied upon in the impugned order to conclude that Section 41(1) of the Act cannot be applied in the present facts. In fact a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jayram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was handed over by Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the Revenue. We not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent, on obtaining the permission from Reserve Bank of India on 21st April, 2014, the amounts have been repatriated to M/s. Amas Mauritius Ltd. on 16th May, 2014. Thereafter this amount is not now shown as a liability. 11. In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law in the subject assessment year as an identical issue as decided by the Tribunal in M/s. Jayram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been accepted by the Revenue. The impugned order has merely followed the view of its Coordinate bench in the decision of M/s. Jayram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in the absence of any distinguishing features in fact or law in this case being shown, no interference is warranted. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
