TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41(1). As find that the assessee’s submissions are correct inasmuch as neither the amount involved was coming under the definition of items liable to be taxed u/s. 41(1) nor it has been cogently proved that there was any cessation thereof. - Decided in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2018 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member Appellant by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Respondent by : Ms. N. Hemalatha ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, A. M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 17.02.2017 and pertains to the assessment year 2012- 13. 2. The issue raised is that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ani-Anu developers. It can be seen in assessment year 2009-10 the assessee had not undertaken any trading activity, hence no deduction or expenses were claimed for amount payable to Ani-Anu. That in assessment year 2009-10 amount payable was shown under the head loans and advances. In assessment year 2012-13 through clerical error the said amount of ₹ 7,25,000/- payable to Ani-Anu was shown under the head sundry creditors. That the said amount cannot be taxed u/s 41(1) of the Act as the Assessing Officer has not proved that the said amount was claimed as loss, expenditure or trading liability in earlier years. That the Assessing Officer did not bring any material to record to reject confirmation by calling any clarification from Ani-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find no reason to interfere with the finding of the AO and disallowance of ₹ 7,25,000/- is accordingly upheld. 6. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. I have heard both the counsels and perused the records. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that as explained before the authorities below, the assessee has taken a loan for purchase of gym equipments. That the amount received was not on account of any trading liability. That the amount was not claimed as loss or expenditure earlier also. Hence, it was pleaded that the amount involved cannot be taxed u/s. 41(1). It was further claimed that the assessee has duly shown the amount outstanding as liability. The amount has not been written off in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
