TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. So far as allowability of interest expenses in preceding years, principle of res judicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings - decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.1030/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2018 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Shri V Justin,DR ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 1030/Mum/2016, is directed against appellate order dated 11.12.2015 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai (hereinafter called the CIT(A) ), for assessment year (AY) 2010-11, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncern. The AO observed that there were no other activities carried out by the assessee during the year except sale of old shares on which capital gains to the tune of ₹ 76,06,320/- was earned. There was also some income from write back of excess provision of diminution of investment written back to the tune of ₹ 1,30,578/- . The assessee claimed administrative expenses of ₹ 2,74,778/- and interest payment of ₹ 57,59,731/- which was set off against these income. The AO observed that there is no direct nexus between the income earned and expenses incurred by the assessee. The assessee was asked by the AO to explain and establish that loans were utilised for business purposes and that there is a nexus between interest p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1 crore from Citi Crop Finance on which 0.12 crore was paid as interest. Out of the total amount borrowed a sum of ₹ 0.65 crore was utilized for making investment in other group companies from whom the income earned by way of interest was regularly offered for tax and balance amount was utilized as working capital. All other loans on which interest was paid by the assessee were only utilized for regular business purpose only. d. All the above mentioned details were submitted before the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings but those were not referred at all only because the case was covered under time barring period ended on 31st December, 2012. e. In all the assessments happened for the year s proceeding to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owards interest expenditure claiming itself to be NBFC in the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee before the tribunal. 7. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when appeal was called for hearing before the Bench . The Ld. DR contended that assessee is not cooperating since the proceedings commenced and on all the three earlier dates when the appeal was fixed before the tribunal on 26.12.2017, 03.04.2018 and 30.05.2106, the assessee did not appear before the tribunal. It was submitted that there is no evidence on record that the assessee is engaged in any business activities. It was submitted that there is no nexus brought on record with the utilisation of loans for business purposes as well no nexus is proved between interest pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tune of ₹ 57,59,731/- before the AO. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee had submitted that it invested in increasing its holding in undivided share in leasehold Land and Building as well for making investments in group companies, but no evidences have been brought on record to prove commercial expediency. . The assessee is not appearing before the tribunal and there is no material on record to prove commercial expediency in utilisation of the procceds of loan for business purposes. Under these circumstances keeping in view factual matrix of the case, we are of the view that this appeal is to be dismissed as there is no merit in the appeal filed by the assessee and there is no material on record to prove that assessee has carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
