TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that the said amount of Custom Duty was paid by assessee. Hence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by AO and sustained by ld. CIT (A). Thus, the Ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed. Not allowing claim of interest paid on import duty - Held that:- As we have already confirmed the disallowance of Import duty of ₹ 93,12,159/-, thus, the disallowance of interest expenses which is related to the same amount is also sustained, as the same pertains to the other parties. We order accordingly. Set off of carried forward loss against the income of current year - Held that:- We direct the AO allow the set off of loss to the assessee in accordance with law, in case any loss is brought forward f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aint Brush Industry and Textile Brushes. This material is imported by assessee. The assessee filed his return of income for relevant AY on 31.10.2006 declaring loss of ₹ 1,22,47,806/-. The assessment was completed on 23.12.2008 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The AO while framing assessment disallowed a sum of ₹ 93,12,158/- on account of payment of custom duty. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the disallowance was sustained. Further, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal is filed before us. 4. After filing appeal, the assessee is seeking adjournment on one ground or the other. Even on 31st May 2017, the application for adjournment was filed on a very vague reason that Chartered Accountant is travelling (C.A). Neithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities below carefully. The AO disallowed ₹ 93,12,159/- holding that Custom duty paid was in the name of other party and the assessee failed to produce evidence that the amount was related to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that assessee carried the matter before Settlement Commission, and the order of Settlement Commission mentions that the amount of ₹ 93,12,159/- relates to other parties and confirmed the disallowance. Even before us, the assessee had not filed any documentary evidence or given any explanation to substantiate the contention that the said amount of Custom Duty was paid by assessee. Hence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by AO and sustained by ld. CIT (A). Thus, the Gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and accordingly disallowed it. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), both the action of AO was sustained. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal is filed before us. 10. We have heard the ld. DR for the Revenue and asked the representative of assessee to assist the Bench. The ld. DR of the assessee argued that in the return of income, the assessee claimed Interest Expenses of ₹ 34,90,477/- on total Import Duty payment of ₹ 1,97,60,150/- paid in AY 2006-07. The assessee claimed Interest Expenses on the amount of ₹ 93,12,159/- which was disallowed in the earlier year assessment (AY 2006-07). Since the Import Duty was not allowed as the expenses in the AY 2006-07, hence, the Interest exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss claimed by the assessee in AY 2005-06 was converted into income and therefore, there was no brought forward losses available to the assessee for set off of against the income of the year under consideration. Hence, the action of AO was also confirmed. Considering, the fact that in ITA No. 3377/M/2012 for AY 2006-07, we have already confirmed the disallowance of Import duty of ₹ 93,12,159/-, thus, the disallowance of interest expenses which is related to the same amount is also sustained, as the same pertains to the other parties. We order accordingly. In so far as the ground of appeal related to the carry forward et off of carried forward loss, we direct the AO allow the set off of loss to the assessee in accordance with law, in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
