TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut. In addition to the purchase and the closing stock, the amount of ₹ 70,04,814/- also found credited in the profit and loss account as income from undisclosed sources. The net effect of this double entry accounting treatment is that firstly the unrecorded stock of rice has been brought on the books and now forms part of the recorded stock which can be subsequently sold out and the profit/loss therefrom would be subject to tax as any other normal business transaction. Secondly, the unrecorded investment which has gone in purchase of such unrecorded stock of rice has been recorded in the books of accounts and offered to tax by crediting the said amount in the profit and loss account. Had this investment been made out of known source, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own viewpoint but that of a prudent businessman. Further, in past, no such disallowance/addition was made. Therefore, neither the addition of notional interest made by the AO or disallowance of interest as held by the ld. CIT(A) is ₹ 1,96,73,637/-. Partners are paid interest @ 12% the balance in the partners account is much more than the amount advanced to Smt. Rita Gupta who is a wife of one of the partner. Therefore, even the disallowance made @ 4% is not justified and the same should be restricted @ 2% only. Revenue appeal dismissed. - D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 258 / 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2017 - K. S. Jhaveri An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income or not and if so, assessee can claim deduction on account of payment of remuneration to partners on account u/s 40b(v). In this regard, our reference was drawn to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Shri Ramnarayan Birla (in ITA No. 482/JP/15 dted 30.09.2016). In that case, the question before the Coordinate Bench was whether the CIT(A)-2, Udaipur has erred in directing the AO to assess the unexplained investment surrendered by the assessee under the head income from Business ignoring the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohd. Hazi Hasan 247 ITR 290 that unaccounted income ought to be categorized under the residuary head of Income from other sources . In respect to the said issue, the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that particular head. It is observed that there is no conflict with the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohd. Jajihasan (supra) where investment in an asset or expenditure is not identifiable and no nexus was established then with any head of income and thus was not available for set off against any loss under any other head. Therefore, the Hon ble Coordinate Bench held that where asset in which undeclared investment is sought to be taxed is not clearly identifiable or does not have independent identity but is integral and inseparable (mixed) part of declared asset falling under a particular head, then the difference should be treated as undeclared business income explaining the investment. In the present case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be subject to tax as any other normal business transaction. Secondly, the unreco4rded investment which has gone in purchase of such unrecorded stock of rice has been recorded in the books of accounts and offered to tax by crediting the said amount in the profit and loss account. Had this investment been made out of known source, there was no necessity for assessee to credit the profit/loss account and offer the same to tax. Accordingly, we do not see any infirmity in assessee s bringing such transaction in its books of accounts and the accounting treatment thereof so as to regularise its books of accounts. In fact, the same provides a credible base for Revenue to bring to tax subsequent profit/loss on sale of such stock of rice in futu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deleted. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by stating that it is the disallowance of interest. It is submitted that the lower authorities have not disputed about the commercial expediency about the advance given to Smt. Rita Gupta. In fact, the advance was given to Smt. Rita Gupta in earlier years for construction of godown and the same was given on rent by the assessee. Therefore once commercial expediency for giving the advance is established, no part of the interest expenditure can be disallowed in view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 and Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 379 ITR 347 where it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
