TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, based on the available material, the findings were recorded. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal is based on the material available on record. Therefore, no interference is called for. The Tribunal passed a common order affirming the findings of the Assessing Officer, as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal was also of the view that even before the Tribunal, the assessee could not substantiate her claim with any tangible evidence or material. Therefore, having considered the Balance Sheet and the Profit And Loss Account, the findings recorded by both the authorities were confirmed. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of annual rent expenditure - AO found that the assessee has not furnished the description of the property, rental agreement, name and address of the tenants, sources of investments, etc. - Held that:- The appellant claims to have closed the hotel in the month of October 1998. Therefore, there was no nexus between the expenditure or depreciation claimed by the assessee and the business o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndividual. She filed the return of income for the asst. year 2000-2001, declaring the total income of ₹ 2,16,540/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny. Questionnaire was issued. A reply was furnished. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer disallowed certain business expenses as well as other expenses as claimed in the profit and loss account of M/s. Maruthi Enterprises and M/s.Maruthi Business Centre. 2. The Assessing Officer computed the income of the appellant for the asst. year 2000-2001 as ₹ 9,34,940/- and passed an assessment order. Aggrieved, by the said assessment order, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed. The appeal filed before the Tribunal was also rejected. Hence, the present appeal in ITA No.72 of 2010. By the order dated 12.04.2010, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the disallowance of expenses claimed by the appellant for the asst. year 2000-2001 in the proprietorship concern of M/s.Maruthi Enterprises, being the business expenses on the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment under Section 148 of the Act for the asst. year 2001-02 is valid on the facts and circumstances of the case? ii) Whether the authorities below were justified in law in disallowance of interest payment of ₹ 3,95,570/- for the loan taken from KSFC in the name of M/s.Hotel Haveli and interest on vehicle loan of ₹ 18,244/- for the asst. year 2001-2002 used for the business of the appellant, on the facts and circumstance of the case? iii) Whether the authorities below in law in imposing interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 5. Sri.G.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the orders passed by the authorities are erroneous. That the authorities failed to consider the material produced before them. That interest payment was claimed on the loan borrowed from Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short KSFC) in the name of M/s.Hotel Haveli which was being run by M/s. Maruthi Enterprises, for which the appellant was the proprietress. Therefore, the finding that there was no nexus between Hotel Haveli and Maruthi Enterprises is erroneous. That the disallowance of expenses is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order passed by the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal is based on the material available on record. Therefore, no interference is called for. 11. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed a common order affirming the findings of the Assessing Officer, as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal was also of the view that even before the Tribunal, the assessee could not substantiate her claim with any tangible evidence or material. Therefore, having considered the Balance Sheet and the Profit And Loss Account, the findings recorded by both the authorities were confirmed. 12. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The impugned order of the Tribunal is upheld. 13. ITA NO.120 OF 2010 : So far as the appeal in ITA No.120 of 2010 is concerned, the same pertains to the asst. year 2001-2002. With regard to the income from the property situated at Jayanagar, Bengaluru, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not furnished the description of the property, rental agreement, name and address of the tenants, sources of investments, etc. That the property could not be rented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
